Agent Traffic Lab

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that only the plain-language task is required ('no other fields are needed'), that it selects a provider/tool for the agent to execute rather than executing itself, and that results should be reported via atl_outcome. This gives a clear behavioral picture, though it doesn't describe return format or failure modes.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The long list of trigger conditions is exhaustive but still readable and earns its place; not overly wordy.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, when to use, what input to pass, and the after-action (atl_outcome). It does not detail return values or optional parameter usage, but the schema covers the latter and the workflow is clear.

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 100% (all 8 parameters documented). Per the rubric, baseline is 3. The description adds the key note that 'no other fields are needed' and the task suffices, but does not add detail beyond the schema for the optional parameters. This matches the baseline.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Find the right tool, MCP server, or provider to execute a task.' It uses a specific verb ('Find') and clear resource types, and distinguishes from sibling atl_outcome by directing reporting after execution.

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 provides an extensive list of 'Call this when' triggers (need a tool, provider, MCP server, unsure, multiple options, failure, fallback/routing). It also clarifies what to do after: 'After you execute the selected provider/tool, report the real result with atl_outcome,' which guides alternative usage.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does convey that the tool reports what actually happened and that the report influences future routing, giving some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose prerequisites like the correlation token, idempotency, or error handling. The schema covers the token, but the description alone omits important behavioral details.

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. The first sentence is front-loaded with the action and timing, and the second briefly explains the value. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant content.

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 the tool having 15 parameters, the required ones are clearly implied: decision_reference and outcome_correlation_token come from the prior decision, and outcome_status is the core. The schema descriptions fill in the field-level details. However, the description does not mention the return value or clarify whether the tool can be called multiple times, leaving some gaps given the lack of an output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds richer examples of outcome statuses (timeout, payment or auth failure, unusable result) beyond the schema's 'SUCCESS or FAILURE', which is helpful. However, it does not map these to specific parameters or clarify when to fill optional fields like error_code or observed_latency_ms.

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 purpose: report the real result after executing an ATL decision. It uses the verb 'report' and specifies the resource (outcome of an ATL decision), and it lists concrete example outcomes (success, failure, timeout, etc.), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling atl_decide which is about making decisions.

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 explicitly says 'Call this after executing an ATL decision', giving clear timing and context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but since the only sibling is atl_decide (the precursor), the usage is well understood. The rationale about improving future routing decisions further reinforces when to use it.

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