atlas_optimize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says 'Applies improvements while maintaining functionality', which indicates a non-breaking write operation but omits key behavioral traits like whether the code is modified in-place, what output is returned, whether tests are run, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Optimize code'), followed by a concise behavior statement. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, and the tool has 4 parameters with meaningful options like 'preserveApi' and 'language', the description is under-specified. It does not explain what the tool returns, how the parameters interact, or whether the optimization is one-time or iterative. An agent would lack key context to confidently invoke the tool.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 4 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters; it only indirectly references 'critique feedback' which aligns with the 'critique' parameter but does not elaborate on 'language' or 'preserveApi'. Therefore, the description provides no added semantic value beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'optimize' with a clear resource ('code') and adds the trigger 'based on critique feedback', which helps distinguish it from siblings like atlas_refactor. It clearly states the tool's main action, though 'optimize' is somewhat broad and could be more specific about the type of improvements.

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 phrase 'based on critique feedback' implies when to use the tool (after receiving critique), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives such as atlas_refactor or atlas_debug. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the guidance is only implied.

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