athena_schedule_certified

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavior: it returns an exact certificate only if search completes, and otherwise degrades explicitly. This is valuable transparency. It doesn't mention side effects or detailed degradation semantics, but for a scheduling tool this covers the main risk.

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 sentences, front-loaded with action, and every phrase adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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 7 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers the overall purpose and key behavior, but lacks details on parameter structure, tuning limits (max_nodes, exact_task_limit), and what 'degrades' means in the return value. For a moderately complex tool, this leaves some gaps.

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. It explains the meaning of tasks, workers, horizon, and budget, but leaves discount, max_nodes, and exact_task_limit undocumented. The core domain semantics are present, but not all 7 parameters.

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 exhaustively enumerates schedules with specific constraints (dependencies, worker capability, horizon, budgets). It distinguishes itself with 'small finite' and 'exact certificate', differentiating it from the sibling athena_schedule_multiperiod. However, it does not explicitly name that alternative.

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 use for small finite scheduling problems where an exact certificate is desired, and mentions degradation if search doesn't complete. It does not provide explicit when-to-use or exclusion criteria relative to other scheduling tools, leaving the agent to infer.

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