AtlaSent — Knowledge Atlas Lookup

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: what the lookup returns, that querying is case-insensitive, and that omitting parameters lists every concept. It does not specify edge cases such as behavior when both parameters are provided or when no match is found, but it exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 front-loaded with the action and then explains returned content and parameter modes. It is slightly verbose due to the enumerated vocabulary examples, but each sentence carries functional guidance and no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the categories of returned data and the two lookup modes. It is complete enough to select and invoke correctly; the only minor gaps are exact response shape and pagination/limit behavior on the list-all path.

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%, and the description adds value beyond the schema by providing example ids, clarifying that 'query' is a substring search across id/term/definition, and documenting the omit-both default. This goes beyond the baseline without fully specifying interplay between the two parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Look up a canonical AtlaSent concept from the Knowledge Atlas.' It further distinguishes the tool by listing the returned artifact types and the exact vocabulary examples, so an agent can separate this lookup from the many sibling policy/audit/permit tools.

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?

It gives explicit invocation modes: use 'id' for exact matches, 'query' for a case-insensitive substring search, and omit both to list all concepts. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it is clear but not fully exclusionary.

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