athena_rgo_observe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing side effects. It does mention updating a persistent witness, which indicates a write operation, but it does not explain what the witness is, whether the operation is reversible, or what permission or state requirements exist. It also does not describe the return value or any errors.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick parsing.

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 the tool has six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain required fields like plan_key, nor does it describe return values or behavioral expectations. The description is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional schema or documentation.

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 description only clarifies the roles of predicted_rgo and observed_rgo by naming them as 'predicted versus observed Return-on-Group-Organization'. With schema description coverage at 0%, it fails to explain the purpose of actor, scope, features, and plan_key. The description adds some semantic value for two parameters but is largely insufficient for the six-parameter schema.

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 a specific action: recording predicted versus observed Return-on-Group-Organization and updating a persistent witness. It uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource, making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like athena_rgo_calibrate, but the core action is well-defined.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is minimal—only that it records observations—but no explicit usage conditions are given. Sibling tools such as athena_rgo_calibrate and other observe tools could be confused without more guidance.

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