atlas_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly states it returns diagnostic metadata and lists fields (existence, counts, model, timestamps, staleness), implying a read-only operation with no side effects. While it doesn't mention auth or rate limits, it is transparent about its output.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence provides the main action, and the second lists key return fields. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite having 0 parameters, the description thoroughly explains the output values (existence, chunks, repositories, model, timestamp, HEAD SHA, staleness). Given the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what will be returned.

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?

There are no parameters, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the return information, which is not covered by the schema alone. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Get diagnostic metadata and health status of the local vector index.' It lists specific information returned, differentiating it from sibling tools like atlas_index, atlas_map, and atlas_search.

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 checking index health but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The context from the name and sibling tools conveys its purpose.

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