atlas_probe_priority

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses no behavioral traits such as data freshness, real-time vs. snapshot nature, or any filtering logic. The description is too brief to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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 plus a usage directive, with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and application.

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 is simple (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately states what the list contains and its purpose. It lacks details like ordering or threshold for 'need', but overall it is contextually sufficient for a priority list.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the output concerns 'countries and domains', but with no params, the baseline is 4. No additional parameter information is needed.

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 provides a 'Probe-coverage priority list' targeting 'which countries and domains most need additional probe measurements'. It uses a specific verb ('list') and distinct resource ('priority list'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'atlas_risk_tiers' or 'get_most_censored' which have different purposes.

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 says 'Use to direct community probe effort', providing clear context for when to use. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives, which would improve differentiation from possibly related tools.

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