athena_rehydration_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool persists to Git, checkpoints state, and does not create background execution. However, it doesn't explicitly mention potential side effects like overwriting existing state or requiring specific Git head conditions.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and adds a critical behavioral qualifier. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's operation.

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?

Given 16 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too brief. It doesn't explain return values, prerequisites, or what constitutes a valid invocation, leaving the agent without essential information beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its 16 parameters, and the description does not compensate. Terms like 'bounded self-prompt' and 'frontier/state coordinates' hint at some parameters but provide no direct mapping or explanation for fields like 'goal', 'expected_git_head', 'max_steps', or 'shared_remote_mode'.

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 uses specific verbs ('start', 'compile', 'checkpoint') and identifies the resource ('Git-persisted explicit rehydration loop'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like athena_rehydration_advance and athena_rehydration_verify by focusing on initialization and checkpointing.

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 provides clear context for when to use it: to start a Git-persisted explicit rehydration loop, compile the first prompt, and checkpoint coordinates. The explicit statement 'This creates no background execution' offers a useful constraint for selection, though it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions explicitly.

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