AtlaSent — Authority Graph Integrity Audit

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds crucial behavioral details: strict read-only behavior, three-way classification semantics, the meaning of 'unresolved', the need to check summary.audited_scope before interpreting empty findings, and server refusal on incomplete audits. This substantially exceeds what annotations alone convey and prevents dangerous misinterpretation.

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 long but every sentence earns its place by preventing a serious misreading: no pass/fail, classification meanings, empty-findings caveat, and partial-report refusal. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and read-only guarantee, then layers essential semantic warnings. No filler or redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining result interpretation, and it does so thoroughly: classifications, audited_scope caveat, empty-report behavior, and error semantics. For a one-optional-parameter read-only tool with this complexity, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already thoroughly documents decision_window_days, including its optionality, range, omission behavior, and echo in summary.audited_scope. The main description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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: 'Audit the organization's authority graph for internal inconsistency and return the report verbatim.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from a health check or verdict-producing tool, which separates it from siblings like atlasent_vqp_drift_events or evaluate. The scope and output mode are unmistakable.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: auditing for internal inconsistency, read-only, no pass/fail verdict. It explains what the tool is not ('THIS IS NOT A PASS/FAIL HEALTH CHECK') but does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for choosing them over this audit. This is clear context with a notable exclusion, but not full alternative routing.

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