athena_resolve

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns exact navigation, versions, graph edges, and station data, suggesting a read-only behavior, but it never explicitly states that there are no side effects, permissions, or failure modes. This is useful but incomplete behavioral disclosure.

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?

One tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and every phrase adds meaningful detail about input and output. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully describe return values; it lists categories but does not specify their structure, nesting, or possible failure behavior. The single-parameter input is well-covered, but the output side is only partially specified.

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?

With zero schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'identifier' can be a canonical OID, CID, or name. This adds real semantic meaning beyond the raw string property in the schema, though it omits format examples or normalization details.

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 identifies a specific action ('Resolve') and a specific resource type ('canonical OID/CID/name'), then enumerates exact outputs: 'navigation, versions, graph edges and KC144 station.' This is distinct from sibling tools like athena_regime_resolve by the explicit output combination.

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 the tool should be used when an agent needs to turn a canonical identifier into navigation, versions, graph edges, or station data, but it provides no exclusions or comparisons to sibling resolution/navigation tools. It gives context without explicit when-to-use/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.