athena_runtime_manifest

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, authentication needs, or operational constraints. It uses the verb 'Return' which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state safety properties, prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), or potential performance impacts. The description focuses on content provenance rather than behavioral traits.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then efficiently lists derivation sources without unnecessary filler. Every clause adds specificity, making it appropriately concise for a complex manifest tool.

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 output schema, the description partially compensates by enumerating content areas (schema/startup, Collective/AOR organs, unresolved semantics, Git status). However, it does not describe the return structure, format, or any failure modes. It also assumes background familiarity with 'ATHENA.RUNTIME.UNIFIED.1' and does not clarify prerequisites beyond 'running Server' implicitly. More detail would improve completeness.

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 tool has zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details (none are needed), and the empty input schema is fully covered. The description provides context about the output instead, which is appropriate for a parameter-less tool.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('live ATHENA.RUNTIME.UNIFIED.1 architecture manifest'). It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by enumerating the exact derivation sources (running Server, schema/startup state, Collective/AOR organs, unresolved semantics, exact Git status), making its scope unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when a comprehensive runtime architecture manifest is needed) and hints at its coverage, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like athena_git_status or athena_schema_status, nor provide exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than directly stated.

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