atcCustomizing

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is fully consistent with them. The description adds that it describes 'how ATC is set up', which is useful context but does not provide return format or further behavioral details. Since annotations already cover the safety profile, the description adds only marginal value.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the subject and the key content, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 parameterless, read-only query tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential content: check variants and their priorities, and the default behavior of atcCheck. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns. It could be more precise about the output format, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not add parameter-related information, but none is needed since there are no parameters to clarify.

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 the resource (ATC configuration) and the specific aspect (check variants and their priorities, what atcCheck runs against by default). It does not use an imperative verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the purpose is unambiguous. It hints at differentiation from atcCheck and atcCheckVariant by focusing on system-wide defaults, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as atcCheckVariant or atcCheck. The phrase 'what atcCheck runs against by default' implies a specific use case, but it does not state 'use this when you need the default configuration' or mention alternative tools. Given the large number of ATC-related siblings, this 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.