Run a Vedha Atlas review recipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: the review is 'deterministically' composed, field reads are resolved against named canvases, and the agent must never invent a value not present in `resolved`. This is meaningful behavior disclosure beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core operation. Each sentence earns its place: the operation, the use case, and the critical no-invention instruction. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return shape and safety, and the description gives strong procedural guidance. However, the unexplained `step` parameter and undefined 'named canvases' leave enough ambiguity that an agent may not know the full valid invocation space.

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 the description never explicitly explains `step` or `skill_id`. It refers vaguely to 'named recipe' and 'steps', but does not clarify whether `step` selects a single step or whether omitting it runs all steps. This is a significant gap for confident invocation.

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 operation: 'compose an Atlas-level review by walking a named recipe's steps' and identifies the scope as cross-canvas/cross-altitude reviews. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like vedha_get_canvas or vedha_get_diagnosis with the example 'Monthly Business Review'.

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 explicitly says to use the tool for cross-canvas/cross-altitude reviews, giving a concrete example. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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