athena_rollout_simulate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly states 'simulate-only; never commits topology,' which is a strong side-effect guarantee. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., uncertainty bands, trajectories) or any other behavioral nuances, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key constraints. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks any mention of expected inputs/outputs, parameter semantics, or the structure of uncertainty-banded results. While it states a core behavioral guarantee, it does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 for all six parameters. It only hints at 'explicit context transitions,' which loosely relates to `trajectories` or `initial_context`, but provides no explanation of `regime`, `discount`, `max_steps`, or `exploration_alpha`. This is minimal added meaning.

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 ('Run uncertainty-banded multi-step organization rollouts') with a distinct resource and methodology ('explicit context transitions only'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like athena_rollout_learned and athena_counterfactual_simulate by emphasizing uncertainty banding and the 'simulate-only' nature.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: 'explicit context transitions only' and 'Always simulate-only; never commits topology.' This provides a when-not condition (don't use if you need to commit topology changes) but does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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