atomic_grounding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It sketches an internal pipeline (split → gate → gap) but says nothing about side effects, whether it is read-only, permission requirements, cost/latency, or determinism. The 'advisor_dir' parameter hints at filesystem access but this is never confirmed.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and ends with the distinctive output (inflation gap). No filler, though the compressed jargon limits immediate comprehension.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and two undocumented parameters, the description leaves major gaps. It names the headline output metric but does not describe the return structure, the role of advisor_dir, or any failure modes — insufficient for a tool of this apparent complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and there are two required parameters. The description implies 'text' is the statement being split ('разбить заявление на атомы'), but 'advisor_dir' is entirely unexplained in both schema and description. With 0% coverage the description must compensate and it does not.

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 multi-step operation: decompose a claim into atoms, verify each with a gate, and produce an 'inflation gap' metric. This is more than a restatement of the name, though the jargon ('gates', 'atoms', 'inflation gap') is domain-specific and never defined. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like fidelity_check or gate_verdict.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as fidelity_check or gate_verdict that appear to operate in adjacent territory. The agent is left to infer when atomic decomposition is preferable to a plain fidelity check.

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