athena_rgo_calibrate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful detail—the calibration uses reliability shrinkage toward the identity predictor—which gives insight into the algorithm. However, it does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, what data is accessed, or what the return value is. This is partial transparency.

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 compact sentence with no fluff. However, it packs multiple technical terms (RGO, reliability shrinkage, identity predictor) into a dense phrasing that may hamper immediate comprehension. Still, it is appropriately sized.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves major gaps: it does not specify the outcome of calibration, whether it modifies stored data, how downstream observations are accessed, or what 'scope' controls. A one-sentence description is insufficient for a tool with zero schema coverage.

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%. The description names the 'predicted RGO' parameter but provides no format, units, or meaning beyond the name. The 'scope' parameter is entirely unmentioned. The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific verb ('calibrate') with a clear resource ('a new predicted RGO') and a mechanism ('against accumulated downstream observations with reliability shrinkage toward the identity predictor'). This clearly states the tool's function and differentiates it from related tools like athena_rgo_observe or athena_uncertainty_calibrate through the specific calibration approach.

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 is called when a predicted RGO needs calibration using downstream observations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., athena_uncertainty_calibrate) or any exclusions. This qualifies as implied usage only.

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