atlas_circumvention

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses that the tool gives 'reachability status' but does not state whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The behavioral traits are implied but not explicit.

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 concisely states purpose and usage, with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description could be more complete by describing the return format (e.g., status per tool). However, the single required parameter and clear purpose make it adequate for selection. The agent may need to infer the output structure.

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% (country_code described as ISO 3166-1 alpha-2). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the parameter implicitly. Baseline of 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 uses a specific verb 'status' and resource 'circumvention tooling' and lists concrete examples (VPN protocols, Tor, Snowflake). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like atlas_evasion by focusing on reachability of anti-censorship tools.

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 states 'Use to advise which tools still work in a given country', providing clear context for when to use. It does not specify when not to use or alternative tools, but the purpose is sufficiently clear.

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