athena_transport_pheromone_attention

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool 'never populates relevance, source_authority, evidence, confidence or Y authority,' which is a critical limitation for an agent to know. It also clarifies it is an 'adapter,' suggesting a non-mutating role, but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions, or persistence behavior.

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 primary action and followed by a concise behavioral limitation. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations) and the existence of many related transport tools, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage guidance, parameter explanations for actor and persist, and any mention of return values or side effects. The behavioral note is valuable but insufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool with confidence.

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 by explaining parameters. It only indirectly covers 'route_keys' via 'named routes' and provides no explanation for 'actor' or 'persist'. The description fails to clarify the purpose or semantics of the other two parameters.

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 a specific verb 'Freeze' with a precise resource: 'Collective-V2 pheromone state for named routes into AOR/RAG attention-prior packets.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the exact packet type and adapter behavior.

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 by describing the core function (freezing pheromone state into attention-prior packets) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. It does not mention any sibling tools or exclusions beyond the 'never populates' caveat, which is a weak exclusion.

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