atlas_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool checks availability and reports a target URL, and that it can differentiate failure modes. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only or side-effect-free, but for a status check this is implicitly understood. The behavior is well disclosed.

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?

Two sentences, zero wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the usage guideline. It is optimally concise and structured.

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 zero parameters and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description provides all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it distinguishes. No critical information is missing for an agent to call it 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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail (none are needed). It does not repeat schema information, which is consistent with a no-parameter tool.

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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'ATLAS', and specifies that it reports 'what this server is pointed at'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_conversation or search_conversations, which have different purposes.

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?

It explicitly says 'Start here when another tool fails', providing a clear usage context. It also outlines the three distinct outcomes (ATLAS down, feature disabled, wrong URL), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus troubleshooting alternatives.

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