Run ATC Analysis

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds the dual-mode behavior (analysis vs documentation) but doesn't disclose side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It provides some but limited additional context.

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?

One concise sentence covering both modes. No redundant information, but could be slightly improved by separating the actions for clarity.

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 lacks crucial information for the tool's complexity: 12 parameters, no output schema, and two distinct actions. It fails to explain how to use parameters like objectName, objectType, useActiveFile, or the relationship between action and other fields.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 12 parameters. It mentions 'exact object' and 'prior finding' but gives no details on how to specify them via parameters like objectUri or docUri. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 states two specific actions: running the ATC analysis and retrieving documentation, using a verb ('Run', 'retrieve') and resource ('ATC check variant', 'documentation'). It distinguishes between the two modes and from sibling tools like get_atc_decorations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With many sibling tools, the lack of usage context is a significant gap.

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