atlas_review_accountability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the core behavior — shows all commitments and flags overdue ones — and 'review' implies a non-mutating action. However, it does not explicitly state read-only/no side effects, auth requirements, or what the returned data looks like, which matters more given there is no output schema.

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?

A single sentence with the main clause front-loaded and zero fluff. The overdue-detection clause earns its place as the key differentiator, and no structured fields or annotations need to be duplicated.

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 zero-argument review tool this is nearly sufficient: the agent knows what it shows and that no input is needed. But with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves gaps around return structure, side-effect profile, and explicit routing between this and atlas_track_commitment.

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?

Zero parameters means there is nothing for the description to explain beyond the empty schema; baseline 4 applies. The phrase 'all commitments' usefully reinforces that no filtering scope exists.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('review') and resource ('commitments') with a clear scope ('all') and a distinguishing feature ('automatic overdue detection'). It reads as a read-side overview tool and is visually distinct from the ingest/add/update siblings, though it does not name a specific sibling to disambiguate from.

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 'Full' implies the comprehensive overview use case, and the sibling set hints at alternatives (e.g. atlas_track_commitment for individual tracking), but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. An agent must infer routing from the name and one-liner.

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