atlas_critique

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'returns detailed feedback and scores' but does not clarify side effects (e.g., read-only nature), authentication requirements, rate limits, or any constraints. The description lacks transparency about what the tool actually does beyond returning output.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a brief mention of the output type. It is concise, avoids fluff, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It explains the basic purpose and that it returns feedback and scores, but omits important context such as response format, input size limits, how 'focus' affects output, and how this tool differs from similar review tools. For a critique tool with sibling overlap, this is incomplete.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description does not add meaningful parameter-level information beyond what the schema offers; it only mentions 'quality, security, and best practices,' which loosely relate to the 'focus' parameter but do not explain usage or syntax. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 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's purpose: review and critique code for quality, security, and best practices, and mentions it returns feedback and scores. The verb 'review' and resource 'code' are specific. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like atlas_review or atlas_security, which likely overlap in function.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or situations where other tools might be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the generic purpose statement.

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