enzo_atomize

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the three possible actions but does not explain what 'admit', 'decompose', or 'request refinement' do in practice, whether the tool mutates state, or what prerequisites apply. This is insufficient for a validation/decomposition decision tool.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and immediately names the three possible decisions. It contains no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the tool has a highly complex input schema with nested types and enums, no annotations, and a one-line description. Critical context is missing: what constitutes a valid proposed claim, what triggers each outcome, how it relates to the sibling tools, and what state changes occur. The description is not self-sufficient for safe invocation.

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%, with one complex 'request' parameter buried in a large $defs structure. The description adds only the generic phrase 'one proposed claim' and does not explain how to fill the required AtomizeRequest fields or how they relate to the validation outcomes, so it fails to compensate for the absence of schema descriptions.

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 action ('validate one proposed claim') and lists the three expected outcomes ('admit, decompose, or request refinement'), so an agent has a clear idea of what the tool accomplishes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools enzo_observe or enzo_state, so it loses the top score.

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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over enzo_observe or enzo_state, nor are the alternatives mentioned. The one sentence implies use when a proposed claim has been formed, but there are no exclusions or condition-based routing instructions.

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