athena_witness_capsule

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the prerequisite condition (bubblewrap availability), the failure mode (HERMETIC_UNAVAILABLE), and the guarantee 'Never silently falls back'. This gives the agent a clear safety profile beyond what any annotation would provide.

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 of 24 words total, front-loaded with the primary action and then the conditional behavior. Every word earns its place; there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

Considering the tool's simple purpose and lack of output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: what it runs, the prerequisite, and the failure behavior. It does not describe return values or side effects, but for a fail-closed test runner, the provided context is sufficient. The only noticeable gap is the missing parameter guidance, which is already penalized in dimension 4.

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 mention either parameter (regression_ref, timeout_s). The tool name and description imply repository testing, but the required regression_ref and optional timeout_s remain completely unexplained, forcing the agent to guess their meaning.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Execute a repository unittest only when bubblewrap namespace isolation is available'. This is a specific verb-resource pair with a clear condition, distinguishing it from sibling tools like athena_witness_cell by focusing on repository unittest execution and the bubblewrap isolation requirement.

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 phrase 'only when bubblewrap namespace isolation is available' provides an explicit condition for use, and 'otherwise fail closed with HERMETIC_UNAVAILABLE' tells the agent that this tool should not be used without that isolation. It does not name alternatives but clearly delimits the appropriate context.

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