atlas_semantic_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the tool is read-only, what happens on no results, how similarity scoring works, or whether any setup or indexing is required. It only lists features, not operational behavior or side effects, leaving the agent uncertain about the tool's execution characteristics.

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 excessively verbose and repetitive, with bullets like 'Search by meaning, not just text matching' and 'Search code by MEANING, not just keywords' saying essentially the same thing. It is more of a marketing pitch than a concise tool description, wasting valuable tokens. The structure is organized but the content is inflated.

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 tool has 6 parameters including a nested filters object, and no output schema, the description should explain what the results look like and any limitations. It does not mention the return format, result fields, or any behavior like pagination or sorting. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral and output context is missing, making the description incomplete for an agent to fully understand 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?

Schema description coverage is 83%, with all parameters (query, filters, queryType, maxResults, projectPath, includeContext) already well-documented in the input schema. The description does not add any extra parameter-level details, so it adds no value beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as a semantic code search engine with a specific verb ('search') and resource ('code'). It distinguishes itself from keyword-based search by emphasizing meaning-based matching, natural language queries, and intent discovery. This differentiates it from sibling tools like atlas_intent or atlas_context, which likely focus on other aspects.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to find code by meaning or behavior description, with examples like 'find all authentication code'. It subtly implies it's for semantic search rather than exact matches, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools. This is a minor gap.

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