athena_verify_emission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool computes a SHA-256 hash and detects mutations, but it does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects occur, or what the return behavior is on mismatch.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words, front-loading the primary action. Every word adds value.

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 description captures the core purpose but omits parameter semantics and return behavior. With no output schema, the agent is left guessing what the tool returns, making the description incomplete for fully autonomous invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It provides no direct explanation of 'envelope_id' or 'visible_text', though 'visible-byte SHA-256' hints at the role of visible_text. The agent must infer parameter meanings from context.

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 with a specific verb ('Verify an ENV emission') and explains its mechanism (recomputing SHA-256) and goal (detecting mutations). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like athena_crystallize_output or athena_finalize_output by focusing on 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 implies the tool is used after crystallization to check for mutations, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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