athena_rollout_learned

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Always SIMULATE_ONLY' clearly discloses the key behavioral trait of no side effects, which is critical for an AI agent. It also hints at the output nature with 'uncertainty-banded discounted return', but does not cover potential errors or state mutations beyond the simulation guarantee.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the primary action and key constraint. Every word adds value, and there is no redundant or ambiguous language.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description does not explain parameter relationships, expected format for nested objects, or return structure, making it inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameters, but it only hints at semantics via terms like 'trajectories', 'discounted', and 'uncertainty'. It does not explicitly describe what 'initial_context', 'trajectories', 'discount', 'prior_strength', or 'uncertainty_alpha' contain or expect, leaving the agent to guess.

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 'Simulate' and explicitly names the resource 'multi-step trajectories through the learned transition model', distinguishing it from sibling tools like athena_rollout_simulate by highlighting the learned model and uncertainty-banded discounted return. The additional 'Always SIMULATE_ONLY' clarifies its safe simulation 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 implies usage for simulation-only scenarios via 'Always SIMULATE_ONLY', but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like athena_rollout_simulate or state when not to use it. There is no clear exclusion or when-to-use guidance beyond the implied safe simulation context.

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