AtlaSent — Create Evidence Export

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) indicate a non-destructive mutation. The description adds behavioral details: returns SHA-256 for tamper verification and default 90-day window. However, it omits other important behaviors like synchronous/asynchronous nature, idempotency, or side effects. Given annotations, the extra context is moderate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and key output, the second explains the default window and parameter usage. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers the core use case, constraints, and behavior. It mentions the SHA-256 return. However, it does not describe the full response structure or error cases. For a creation tool, this is largely sufficient but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default window (past 90 days) and how to narrow it using date_from/date_to, which is not in the schema. It also mentions the enterprise plan requirement implicitly linking to org_id. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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: generating a compliance evidence bundle for specific audit regimes. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('compliance evidence bundle'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_evidence_export' (retrieve) and 'list_evidence_exports' (list).

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Enterprise plan required') and provides guidance on default window and narrowing with parameters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection vs sibling tools.

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