athena_replication_design

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'DESIGN_ONLY' hints at a non-executing, likely read-only or pure-computation behavior, which adds some transparency. However, it does not disclose whether state is modified, what the output format is, or any side effects. More detail on the ranking process or return structure would improve this.

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?

Two sentences, essential information front-loaded, no wasted words. The acronym 'DESIGN_ONLY' is a compact way to convey the design-only constraint.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, the semantics of key parameters, or how to use it in the broader workflow. The description covers purpose but leaves the agent to guess at parameter behavior and output interpretation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It only vaguely references 'cost and risk' (matching cost_weight and risk_weight) and 'designs' (matching candidates). It does not explain the role of 'mode', 'dimensions', or the structure of 'candidates'. This is a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 the action ('Rank'), specific object ('proposed REPLICATION or FALSIFIER designs'), and the ranking criteria ('expected power, metadata novelty, feasibility, cost and risk'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like athena_experiment_design, which are less specific. The 'DESIGN_ONLY' tag adds further scope.

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 gives clear context: use when you have proposed replication or falsifier designs to rank. The 'DESIGN_ONLY' tag implies it is not for executing or implementing designs, which is a mild exclusion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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