AtlaSent — Explain Authority

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description compounds this by explicitly stating it 'does not change /v1-evaluate, /v1-verify-permit, or any deny/hold/allow semantics.' It also discloses output structure: matched mechanisms are reported as path entries, excluded/ambiguous relationships as unresolved findings. This is rich behavioral context beyond 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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, read-only guarantee, relationship to sibling paths, and output behavior with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only explanation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what question it answers, that it is non-mutating, and what kind of findings it returns. It does not describe exact response fields or error behavior, but the absence is minor given the tool's explanatory nature and the strong sibling differentiation.

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 and even includes wire-format guidance for requested_scope. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 names a specific verb ('explain'), a specific resource ('authority for a scope'), and the exact question being answered. It also enumerates authority mechanisms (direct_grant, delegation, role_capability), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling evaluation/verification 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?

The description states that the tool is strictly read-only and that it 'explains the same facts those paths already read,' referencing /v1-evaluate and /v1-verify-permit. This gives clear context about its relationship to evaluation/verification tools, though it does not explicitly say 'use this instead of X when...'.

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