AtlaSent — VQP Audit Summary

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source ('BCCAE compliance report') and the included data elements, which is valuable for understanding what the tool returns. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides a use case. Information is front-loaded and 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?

Without an output schema, the description hints at return values (hash match rates, drift event counts, verdict changes), which is helpful. The tool is simple with 3 parameters, and the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, for complete coverage, more detail on the return format could be beneficial.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add new semantics to the parameters beyond their names and types.

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 specifies the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'summary of VQP audit activity' with explicit data points (hash match rates, drift event counts, verdict changes). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like atlasent_vqp_drift_events by indicating this is a summary from the BCCAE compliance report.

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 a clear use case ('SOC 2 evidence collection and monitoring dashboards'), implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives like atlasent_vqp_drift_events or atlasent_list_audit_events.

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