athena_schema_verify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by stating that additive drift is reported separately from corruption, indicating a nuanced verification result. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only), return format, or failure behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Verify schema-ledger target version') and every word adds value. It is appropriately concise without extraneous detail.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key purpose and a key behavioral distinction. For a parameterless verification tool, it is reasonably complete, though it omits details about the exact output format or how corruption is indicated.

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, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the description needs to add beyond what the empty schema already conveys.

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 the specific verb 'Verify' and identifies exact resources: 'schema-ledger target version' and 'critical unified-organ tables.' This clearly distinguishes it from schema manipulation tools like athena_schema_migrate and athena_schema_plan.

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 states what the tool checks, which clearly implies when to use it: when schema verification is needed. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions but provides clear context.

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