atlas_pipeline

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists the pipeline stages, omitting any mention of side effects such as git operations, code modifications, or persistent changes. The 'Git' stage hints at side effects but no specifics are given.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists the pipeline stages efficiently. It is concise and easy to scan, though the brevity sacrifices behavioral detail.

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 complex pipeline tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how options affect execution, what happens to the project, or failure modes. Significant context is missing.

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 provides descriptions for 'message' and 'projectPath' (67% coverage), but the nested 'options' object and its properties (skipGit, numVariants, maxDecomposeDepth) lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter context, leaving these options ambiguous beyond their names.

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 'Run the full Atlas pipeline' and enumerates the stages, making it evident this is a composite orchestration tool. This distinguishes it from the individual atlas_* sibling tools like atlas_intent or atlas_git.

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 implies usage for running the entire pipeline rather than individual stages, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the stage-specific siblings. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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