atlas-streams-discover

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context, such as the ability to check processor health and get combined reports, which goes beyond the annotations' simple safety labels. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, then lists use cases and action guidance. Each sentence adds value, though repetition of 'Use ...' phrases could be slightly more concise. Overall efficient and well-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 9 parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of multiple actions, the description provides sufficient context about when and how to use each action, including details like 'diagnose-processor' output contents. It covers the main use cases effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters clearly. The description reinforces parameter usage for actions (e.g., 'workspaceName required for most actions') but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool discovers and inspects Atlas Stream Processing resources, listing specific use cases like 'why is my processor failing' and 'show processor stats'. This directly communicates its purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools that target other areas (e.g., clusters, databases).

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 provides clear guidance on which action to use for different queries (e.g., 'list-workspaces' for workspaces, 'diagnose-processor' for health). However, it does not explicitly exclude this tool for non-stream-processing tasks or reference sibling tools like 'atlas-list-projects' for project listing.

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