AtlaSent — List Evidence Exports

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and non-destructive. The description adds that each record includes status and SHA-256 hash, and the enterprise plan requirement, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or error handling.

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 consists of two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. No redundant information is present.

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?

The description covers purpose, plan requirement, and return record fields. Missing details like pagination or default filter are minor given the tool's simplicity and existing annotations.

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% with descriptions for both parameters (org_id, regime). The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline score.

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 the specific verb 'list' and identifies the resource as 'compliance evidence bundles' for an organization. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like 'atlasent_create_evidence_export' and 'atlasent_get_evidence_export'.

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 states 'Enterprise plan required' as a prerequisite but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_evidence_export'. Usage is implied from the verb but lacks explicit when-not or alternative references.

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