atlas_decompose

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the output ('Creates a DAG of work items') but does not clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies state, requires external calls, or has side effects. The description lacks transparency about the tool's operational footprint.

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 action ('Break down a complex task') and includes the key output concept. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple planning tool. It states the core function and output, but it omits usage context and behavioral details that would help an agent decide when to invoke it. It is not incomplete enough to be a 2, but lacks the richness of a well-rounded description.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter-specific nuance beyond the schema, but the schema already documents each parameter adequately. This meets the baseline without further enhancement.

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 identifies the tool's primary function with a specific verb and resource: 'Break down a complex task into smaller subtasks with dependencies.' It also specifies the output form ('Creates a DAG of work items'), which adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools by name or contrast, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool does, without any mention of prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or exclusions. It does not reference any sibling tools or suggest when decomposition is appropriate versus other atlas operations.

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