atlas_lint

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the description is not the sole carrier of safety information. It still adds real behavior beyond them: it clarifies that the check respects `.atlas/managed.json`, distinguishes managed docs from legacy discovered docs, and that legacy findings surface only as hints. The explicit thresholds (e.g. >8,000 chars) and required status markers are useful operational detail.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then a compact checklist of checks, then a labeled 'Behavior & Output' block — an easy scan for an agent. The return-shape line partially restates the output schema, which is a small redundancy rather than a structural flaw.

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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only audit tool, everything needed to invoke and interpret it is present: trigger conditions, the exact defect categories, the managed-vs-discovered distinction, and the response keys. No required behavior or interpretation guidance is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; 'Takes no parameters' merely confirms the empty schema. There is no parameter meaning left to add, so no deficiency exists here.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('indexed documentation'), and enumerates the concrete defect classes it detects (duplicate anchors, empty headings, oversized sections, missing status markers, broken `implements:` paths). That specificity separates it cleanly from siblings like atlas_read, atlas_outline, and atlas_links, which inspect content rather than structural health.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use this tool after editing documentation or running `atlas init`.' That is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming a discriminating alternative or stating when-not to run it (e.g. that atlas_links covers link inspection more deeply), so it falls short of a 5.

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