atlas_guard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return behavior (allowed vs. blocked reason), but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the check itself has any operational impact.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the core question is front-loaded and the return behavior is stated immediately after.

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 simple one-parameter check with no output schema, the description gives only a basic indication of return values. It leaves the URL format and the structure of a blocked reason vague, which is a modest gap but not fatal for such a narrow tool.

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% for the single required url parameter. The description only repeats 'this URL' without adding format, scope, or examples beyond the schema's type: string declaration.

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 states a specific query about URL automation permission and what the tool returns (allowed or blocked reason), making the purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from browser-action siblings, but the check/guard purpose is still evident.

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?

Usage is implied by the question form — an agent can infer this checks whether automation is permitted for a URL — but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives among the many browser sibling tools.

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