atlas_think

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses capabilities such as 'Each thought can: question previous steps, branch into alternatives, mark dead ends, propose/verify hypotheses, and merge conclusions.' It also mentions dynamic adaptability (confidence tracking, revisions). It does not detail system-level effects (e.g., persistence), but for a cognitive tool, the stated behaviors are substantial and relevant.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses a concise introductory sentence, a clear bulleted list of use cases, and a concluding sentence on capabilities. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 18 parameters and complex behavior.

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's complexity (18 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description provides strong context about when and how to use it. It covers the reasoning process, branching, and verification. It does not explain return values or expected output, but the absence of an output schema lowers the burden. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide invocation and understand the tool's capabilities.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all 18 parameters. The description adds no specific parameter-level detail, but it does frame the conceptual purpose of some fields (e.g., branching, hypothesis). This meets the baseline of 3 without exceeding it.

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: 'Advanced sequential thinking for complex problem-solving,' with a specific list of features (branching, hypothesis testing, confidence tracking). It goes beyond a mere restatement, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'analyze' or 'reason.' It is distinct from siblings like atlas_decompose or atlas_critique by focusing on iterative thought progression, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides explicit usage scenarios with a bulleted list: 'Use this tool for: Breaking down complex problems step-by-step, Multi-path reasoning...' This gives clear context. However, it does not include when-not-to-use guidance or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a full 5.

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