athena_transport_replay

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds meaningful context ('frozen inputs', 'proves adapter determinism') and an important caveat, but it omits side effects, error behavior, or what the return payload looks like, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the active verb, no filler. The second sentence adds a valuable conceptual caveat that prevents misuse, so every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, the resource, the verification objective, and a key epistemic limitation. It doesn't spell out the exact return format or failure modes, but those are secondary for this simple replay operation.

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 provides run_id as a string with no description. The description hints that run_id identifies a 'persisted typed transport' with frozen inputs, adding some meaning, but it never explicitly names run_id or explains how to obtain/validate it. With 0% schema coverage, this is partial compensation.

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 ('Replay') and names the resource ('one persisted typed transport') plus the intended check ('verify transport digest'). It clearly differentiates this from sibling transport/replay tools by focusing on typed transports and digest verification.

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 gives useful usage context: replay proves adapter determinism and not semantic truth, which tells the agent when this tool is relevant and what it cannot establish. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the boundary it draws is clear.

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