get_agent_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only status check and lists the returned data, but it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or describe error/edge-case behavior. The ATLAS_API_URL requirement is a useful context, but safety is only implied.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and then lists key details. There is no filler; every phrase contributes meaningful information.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description takes on the job of explaining return values by naming five categories of status data. It does not fully describe the response structure or possible error conditions, but for a simple status tool it is reasonably complete.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there are no property descriptions to rely on. The description adds value by mentioning a non-parameter configuration requirement (ATLAS_API_URL) and describing the content of the status report. This meets the baseline for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Status of the ATLAS research agent' which clearly identifies both the resource and the action. It enumerates specific fields (model, chain configuration, publish interval, atlas count, memory stats) making it distinct from all sibling tools that focus on markets or tokens.

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 a prerequisite ('Requires ATLAS_API_URL') but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context is implied by the tool name and the fact it is the only agent-status tool among siblings.

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