atlas_prediction_track_record

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

The description notes the tool is 'public,' implying read-only access and no destructive actions, but with no annotations to rely on, it fails to disclose other behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are real-time or cached. The mention of specific metrics gives some insight into output content but not format or limitations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose, and the second provides a usage hint. Information is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat lacking. It mentions specific metrics but does not clarify the time range, scope of predictions, or whether results are aggregated. The agent may need additional information to understand the data provided.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adequately conveys the tool's behavior without referencing parameters.

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 that the tool provides a public track record comparing Voidly Atlas predictions to confirmed incidents, listing specific metrics (precision, recall, lead-time, per-prediction outcomes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like atlas_voidly_score or atlas_score, which focus on different aspects of model performance.

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 includes the explicit directive 'Use to assess model accuracy honestly,' which clearly indicates the intended use case. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, limiting guidance for decision-making among siblings.

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