athena_rehydration_handoff_resume

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides meaningful details: fresh-sync, consuming an exact delta, rejecting drift, hydrating only the affected cone, and falling back to full rehydration. This exceeds typical minimal disclosures, though it omits mutation/side-effect specifics.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact—two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and adds a conditional fallback. The language is dense and jargon-heavy, but it earns its place by conveying multiple behavioral aspects succinctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is a high-level overview but insufficient. It does not describe return values, prerequisites, side effects, or the meaning of parameters like shared_remote_mode and include_frontier_on_change. The agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the 6 parameters. Terms like 'handoff delta' and 'dependency cone' hint at concepts but do not map to loop_id, expected_handoff_digest, remote, shared_remote_mode, or the include_* flags. The agent is left without any parameter-level guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly indicates the tool performs a rehydration operation using an exact handoff delta, with explicit behaviors like rejecting drift and hydrating a dependency cone. It suggests this is distinct from related tools like athena_rehydration_handoff_delta or athena_rehydration_resume, though the exact distinction is not fully spelled out.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool (when a handoff delta is expected and rehydration is needed) and includes a fallback condition. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like athena_rehydration_start or athena_rehydration_resume, nor state preconditions such as 'use only if a handoff delta exists' or 'do not use when...'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.