athena_self_test

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 discloses read-only nature, local scope, and the limitation that PASS is not an external attestation. However, it does not explain return values on failure or any other side effects, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. It packs details efficiently without redundant filler, though the technical abbreviations may require domain knowledge.

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 description gives a clear purpose and a key limitation, but for a tool with no output schema and 2 optional parameters, it doesn't explain how to interpret the result beyond PASS/FAIL or how parameters affect the run. It's adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'COMPOSITION.2' and 'deterministic replay samples,' which likely map to run_composition_probes and replay_limit, but it doesn't explicitly connect them. Parameter semantics rely heavily on inference from names.

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 it runs a specific health synthesis (ATHENA.SELFTEST.1) and enumerates the components it checks. The verb 'Run' and the resource 'read-only local health synthesis' are specific, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like athena_startup_health, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative tool references. The caveat about PASS not substituting for external CI implies a limitation but doesn't direct selection among siblings, so the guidance is implied at best.

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