atlas_evasion

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

No annotations are provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose data freshness, authentication requirements, rate limits, or how 'currently work or fail' is determined. The vague time reference and lack of caveats reduce transparency.

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?

One sentence with examples, no wasted words. Efficient but could benefit from structure (e.g., bullet points) for clarity. No headings nor extraneous text.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description fails to define the output format (e.g., list, table, statuses). Agent cannot reliably interpret the return value from 'which ... currently work or fail'.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code'. 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?

Description exactly states the tool's function: provides a censorship evasion profile for a country and lists specific techniques. The name 'atlas_evasion' aligns well, and it clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'atlas_circumvention' by focusing on which techniques work or fail.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'atlas_circumvention' or other country-level tools. The description implies it's for getting evasion techniques, but lacks when-not-to-use or context for selection.

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