atlas_confidence_scorer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the tool 'provides confidence scoring' without explaining output format, how scores are computed, whether verificationData is required, or any other behavioral traits. This is extremely minimal.

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 two sentences with no fluff, but the second sentence is somewhat redundant with the first ('helps understand reliability' restates the purpose). It is concise but not tightly structured with front-loaded specifics.

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 tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, so the description must explain what the tool returns. It does not, instead remaining at a high level. The schema covers parameters well, but the description is missing essential return value and usage context.

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 four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'code suggestions, solutions, and responses,' which loosely maps to the suggestion parameter. This meets the baseline 3.

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 tool provides confidence scoring for code suggestions, solutions, and responses, which is a specific function. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like atlas_critique or atlas_review, so it falls short of a 5.

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 alternatives. The phrase 'helps understand reliability and certainty of recommendations' implies a use case, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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