atlas_docs

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 states the tool 'creates' various documentation artifacts but does not reveal whether it modifies files, returns strings, requires network access, or has side effects. This lack of behavioral detail is a meaningful gap for a tool that may alter the codebase or produce external files.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and is highly scannable.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description should clarify what the tool returns and how it behaves. It covers basic capabilities but omits critical context such as whether it overwrites files, how auto-detection works, or what the output structure looks like. The 100% schema coverage mitigates parameter ambiguity, but overall the description leaves notable gaps.

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 7 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds minimal parameter-related insight, such as mentioning 'usage examples' which maps to includeExamples, but does not enrich understanding of the style or format enums 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 opens with 'Generate documentation for code,' a specific verb+resource pairing. It further elaborates with concrete outputs (JSDoc/TSDoc/PyDoc comments, README files, API documentation, usage examples), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like atlas_explain or atlas_refactor.

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 prerequisites, contexts where documentation generation is appropriate, or contrast with sibling tools. Users are left to infer usage from the name and basic purpose.

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