athena_transport_aor_to_collective

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavioral rule: worker-allocation metrics are never invented, and candidates without explicit collective_metrics are marked UNMEASURED and not allocation-ready. This is valuable, but it does not mention potential side effects of the 'persist' parameter, whether the tool writes to storage, or return behavior, leaving significant transparency gaps.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that both earn their place. The first clearly states the core purpose, and the second adds a crucial caveat about metric fidelity. There is no redundant wording 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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what the translation yields (e.g., whether it returns a list, a status, or creates records). It also does not explain the meaning of required parameters like 'run_id' or the side effect of 'persist'. The transformation target is named, but the result format and side effects remain ambiguous, making the description insufficient for a tool with these parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It does not explain 'actor', 'run_id', or 'persist'. The word 'persisted' only implicitly hints at run_id, but no explicit mapping is provided, leaving all three parameters semantically opaque.

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's function: translating a persisted AORRUN successor frontier into Collective task identities/capability requirements, using a specific verb ('translate') and a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from similar transport tools like athena_transport_bridge_to_collective, so it doesn't earn the top score for sibling differentiation.

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 intended usage is implied by the description: use this when you have a persisted AORRUN successor frontier and need Collective task identities/capability requirements. However, there is no explicit 'when to use' statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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