athena_transport_alarm_to_gap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that 'Alarm transport is not proof of falsity, causal dependence or logical entailment' and that 'missing residual metrics remain for measurement', but it omits side effects, permissions, or return values.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence adds an important epistemic caveat. Every clause contributes information without redundancy.

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?

Despite a clear purpose, the description lacks usage guidance, parameter detail, and output expectations. With no annotations or output schema, and many sibling transport tools, this description is insufficient for an agent to know exactly when to invoke it and how to parameterize it.

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 individual parameters like 'actor' or 'persist'. It only alludes to 'explicit alarmed nodes' (alarm_nodes) and 'alarm provenance' (alarm_ref), leaving required parameters underspecified.

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 'Convert' with clear resources: 'explicit alarmed nodes' into 'GAP target/revalidation pressure'. This makes the purpose unambiguous even among many transport siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate from them.

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 usage when alarm nodes need to become GAP pressure, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternative transport tools. The caveat about provenance hints at conditions but does not state them directly.

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