recheck_antenna_source

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

The description discloses two meaningful behavioral traits: 'deterministically' and 'hash-frozen', which clarify that the operation is reproducible and produces an immutable candidate. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for transparency, but it omits side effects, permissions, or error behavior, so it is partially transparent.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and front-loaded. However, its cryptic jargon ('hash-frozen') reduces overall clarity, though the structure itself is efficient.

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?

Despite having an output schema (contents unknown) and only two parameters, the description lacks crucial context: it does not explain what a 'reviewed source audit' is, how to obtain it, the significance of 'deterministically', or the role of the visual_audit_path. The description also does not indicate what the tool returns beyond 'a new candidate', leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 input schema has two parameters (job_id, visual_audit_path) with 0% schema description coverage, yet the description does not mention either parameter or explain their roles. The parameter names are self-explanatory only at a basic level, and the description adds no information beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('Apply') and resource ('reviewed source audit') with a concrete outcome ('issue a new hash-frozen candidate'), making the tool's core function clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like refine_antenna_source or approve_antenna_source, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 word 'reviewed' implies the tool should be used after an audit has been reviewed, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not contrast with sibling tools such as analyze or refine, leaving the usage context only weakly implied.

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