atlas_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the tool never indexes anything, and it discloses important behavioral details such as the reindex lock ('reindexing' true when another process holds the lock), staleness semantics, and index resolution modes. This gives the agent a strong understanding of side effects and edge cases.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by usage guidance and a detailed return list. Every sentence serves a purpose: usage restrictions, non-side-effect guarantee, and return field explanations. It is appropriately sized for the tool's diagnostic nature.

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 fully compensates for the lack of annotations by documenting the output fields, including edge-case values like index_resolution and is_stale. It is complete for a diagnostic tool with no parameters and no side effects, and it provides enough context for the agent to interpret results correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but with no parameters the baseline is 4, and the description's return-value documentation compensates for any lack of parameter context.

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 states a specific action ('Get diagnostic metadata and health status of the local vector index') tied to a clear resource (local vector index). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it is not a precondition for atlas_search/atlas_brief and never indexes anything.

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 guidance on when to use (explicit diagnostics or deciding whether atlas_index should run) and when not to use (not a precondition for search/brief; call those directly). It also names an alternative tool (atlas_index) and clarifies that search/brief raise errors themselves if the index is missing.

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