atlas_debug

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the tool's analytical actions (parsing, identifying, suggesting) which imply it is read-only and non-mutating, but it does not explicitly state side effects, permissions, or limitations.

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 concise sentences: the first states the primary purpose, and the second enumerates specific debugging features. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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 tool with optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's main role and capabilities. It does not describe return-value format, but that is not required given the absence of an output schema, and the feature list gives enough overall 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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no new parameter-specific guidance beyond mentioning stack traces and errors, so it meets the baseline without enhancing semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze errors and provide debugging assistance.' It then details concrete capabilities (parses stack traces, identifies root causes, suggests fixes with code examples, explains common error patterns), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like atlas_test or atlas_error_predictor.

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 makes it evident when to use the tool: whenever a user needs to analyze an error or debug an issue. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of full exclusions.

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