athena_replication_independence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates the tool 'estimates' (suggesting a read-only calculation) but does not disclose return format, side effects, required permissions, or what 'effective evidential replication/falsification diversity' means in practice. The behavioral transparency is minimal.

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, concise sentence with a clear action verb and front-loaded purpose. It packs many technical terms but does not waste words. There is no fluff or repetition, earning a 4 despite the densely packed jargon.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter roles, expected outputs, or behavioral constraints. A complex tool like this needs much more context to be invocable correctly by an agent.

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 compensate. It names conceptual inputs ('witness confidence', 'independence keys', 'metadata') which partially map to parameters, but it does not explicitly explain claim_id, dimensions, or min_confidence. An agent cannot confidently know how to populate these parameters from the description alone.

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 tool's function: 'Estimate effective evidential replication/falsification diversity' with specific sources ('witness confidence, independence keys and declared dataset/implementation/method/operator/environment/seed metadata'). This is a specific verb+resource+inputs formulation, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like athena_replication_design.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not state prerequisites, use cases, or situations where other tools (e.g., athena_evidence_dependence_probability, athena_replication_design) would be more appropriate. The only implied usage is that it estimates replication diversity, which is not enough for selecting among many similar siblings.

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