atlas-streams-discover

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by explaining what the tool returns: diagnose-processor includes 'state, stats, connection health, and recent errors', and get-networking returns 'PrivateLink and account details.' This goes beyond the simple read-only hint.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence lists practical use cases, and the third maps specific actions to their outputs. Each sentence contributes value, though the quoted use cases add a bit of density without being wasteful.

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 complexity of 9 parameters and 8 distinct actions, the description covers the main action groups and provides a mental map for when to use each. The existence of an output schema means return-value details need not be in the description. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope and select it appropriately.

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 100%, with every parameter documented in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Discover and inspect Atlas Stream Processing resources.' It then reinforces with concrete use cases like 'why is my processor failing' and 'what workspaces do I have', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other resource types. The scope is unmistakably Atlas Stream Processing.

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 action-to-purpose mappings: 'Use list-workspaces to see all workspaces', 'Use inspect actions for details', 'Use diagnose-processor for a combined health report', and 'Use get-networking for PrivateLink and account details.' This gives clear context for when to use each action, though it does not explicitly cover when not to use the tool.

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