atlas_self_validator

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

With no annotations, the description is the primary source of behavioral info. It mentions what the tool checks (syntax, logic, security, edge cases) and that it provides confidence scoring, which is useful. But it does not disclose the output format, whether the tool modifies the input, or any limitations, leaving ambiguity about expected results.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action, lists specific validation dimensions, and includes the confidence scoring behavior. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the core purpose and main checks but falls short on return value expectations and potential side effects. Since there is no output schema, the agent needs more detail on what the tool returns (e.g., confidence score structure, issue list) to fully use it effectively.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all four parameters, so the description adds minimal semantics. It does implicitly align 'checkTypes' with the listed validation categories, but does not elaborate on 'context' or 'language' 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Validates') and resource ('code, suggestions, or solutions'), and enumerates the dimensions of validation (syntax, logic, security, edge cases). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like atlas_test or atlas_critique, which have different focus areas.

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 'before presenting them' provides a clear context for when to use the tool, implying it should be invoked prior to sharing results. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so exclusion guidance is absent.

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