athena_startup_health

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only and does not silently alter mutation semantics, addressing key behavioral concerns. It does not detail the exact side effects of running optional replay samples, but the 'does not silently change' phrase partially mitigates that.

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, information-dense sentence that starts with the main purpose and immediately lists the readiness components and safety characteristics. Every phrase contributes value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 a read-only health check with one optional boolean parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, the safety profile, and the optional parameter. It does not describe the exact return structure, but it lists the readiness aspects, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 schema only defines a boolean 'run_replay_samples' with no description. The tool description references 'optional SELFTEST replay health', which gives meaning to this parameter, indicating it controls whether replay samples are used to assess health. This is a meaningful addition beyond the bare schema, though it could be more explicit about the default and exact behavior.

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 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'ATHENA.STARTUP.1 local readiness', listing concrete aspects (mature surface, composition, schema currency, optional SELFTEST replay health). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on other domains like causal discovery, transport, or topology.

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 provides clear context by stating that reads remain allowed while degraded and that it does not silently change mutation semantics, indicating this is a safe read-only tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations when one should not use this tool, so it falls short of full guidance.

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