athena_scenario_evaluate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it clearly states 'SIMULATE_ONLY', which implies non-destructive evaluation. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether the evaluation modifies state, leaving the agent with only partial behavioral information.

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 two-sentence description is compact with no wasted words, but the first sentence is dense and jargon-heavy, making it less scannable. The standalone 'SIMULATE_ONLY.' adds useful emphasis but could be integrated more cleanly.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description gives only the core concept and leaves major gaps: parameter semantics, return format, and relationship to other simulation tools. An agent would need additional information to invoke it 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% and the description only implicitly references 'actions' as finite action sequences and 'cvar_alpha' via lower-tail CVaR. Parameters like ridge, discount, risk_aversion, scenario_sigma, initial_context, and trajectories are left unexplained, providing insufficient semantic grounding.

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 identifies a specific operation ('Evaluate') with a clear object: caller-supplied finite action sequences on three-branch moment scenario trees, and adds expected return and lower-tail CVaR metrics. It is distinct from generic simulation tools due to the scenario-tree and CVaR focus, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 phrase 'caller-supplied finite action sequences' and 'SIMULATE_ONLY' imply the tool is for offline evaluation of sequences, providing some contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit 'when to use versus X' guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives, so the usage boundaries remain implicit.

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