atlas_context_prioritizer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states high-level behavior (automatically determines, provides relevance scoring) without mentioning potential side effects, data access, performance implications, or limitations. It is not misleading but adds little behavioral clarity.

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 clear, front-loaded sentences with no redundancy. Every word contributes to describing the core purpose and output. This is appropriately concise.

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 is conceptually complex (analysis of a codebase, relevance scoring, output suggestions), but the description does not explain the output format, what 'optimal context' looks like, whether the tool is read-only, or how it uses the projectPath. With no output schema and no annotations, this description leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds a general notion of relevance scoring but gives no specific parameter-level insight beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 determines relevant files, functions, and context for a given task, with a specific verb ('determines') and resource scope. It does not explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like atlas_context or atlas_semantic_search, which prevents 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?

The description implies use when a task needs context prioritization, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative tools. For a sibling-heavy environment, this is insufficient guidance.

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