athena_rehydration_index

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses the fresh-sync side effect and the hold behavior on unverified shared state. It does not fully clarify what 'holds' means (block, error, return empty) or mention any authentication requirements, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action (fresh-sync then list) and specifies exactly what is in the result. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 read-oriented inventory tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will receive (status, step, digests, checkpoint heads) and how it behaves when state is unverified. The phrase 'unverified shared state holds' could be more explicit about the outcome, but overall it gives enough context for an agent to decide whether this tool satisfies a request for rehydration loop inventory.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter semantics. Although it describes the content of the returned list (status, step, digests, checkpoint heads), this is more about output than parameters, but with no params, baseline 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb-resource combination: it fresh-syncs the shared Git branch and lists rehydration loops with their status, step, digests, and checkpoint heads. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_rehydration_verify or athena_rehydration_advance by indicating a listing/indexing role.

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 it (to get current Git-persisted rehydration loop inventory) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions. The 'Unverified shared state holds instead of returning stale inventory' line provides conditional context but does not compare to related tools such as athena_rehydration_verify.

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