athena_surface_audit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that missing surfaces or probe failures return FAIL, which is useful, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what the full return format is. This is partial transparency, not comprehensive.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the action and target, the second clarifies the failure condition. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, increasing the descriptive burden. The description covers the purpose and a key failure behavior, but it does not explain what the output looks like (beyond FAIL), how run_probes affects the audit, or what the 'contract' and 'certificate' entail. It is adequate for a domain expert but incomplete for a general AI agent relying solely on the description.

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 does not explain the 'run_probes' parameter. The term 'probes' appears in the description, offering an indirect clue, but the agent is left without explicit documentation of what the boolean does, defaults, or its effect on the audit. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 audits the promoted unified runtime against a specific contract and certificate, with a clear outcome (FAIL on missing surfaces or organ/probe failures). It is specific in verb and resource but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

The description implies a use case (auditing after promotion) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. With a large sibling list, this lack of direction leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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