atlas-streams-discover

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

Annotations already mark the tool as readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces this by focusing on inspection and discovery. It adds behavioral context such as default response formats and the workflow for different actions, which goes 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 a single paragraph but is front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). It is reasonably concise for the complexity of the tool.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple actions), the description is very complete. It covers all actions, required parameters, default formats, and provides a sequential workflow. Since an output schema exists, not explaining return values is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the workflow (e.g., start with list-workspaces, resourceName required for inspect/diagnose) and default response formats, enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the parameter definitions.

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's purpose: 'Discover and inspect Atlas Stream Processing resources.' It provides specific examples like 'why is my processor failing' and 'show processor stats', and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on the stream processing domain, which none of the siblings explicitly cover.

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 explicit usage guidance: start with 'list-workspaces', then use inspect actions or 'diagnose-processor', and use 'get-networking' for networking details. It does not compare to sibling tools outside the tool's scope, but within the tool it gives a clear sequence and alternatives.

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