Atlas-Docs

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 the return format ('Returns a markdown page with a list of available pages'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and return details in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, return format, and sibling differentiation. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics and behavioral aspects like errors, which prevents a perfect score.

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 schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter is used to specify the documentation set ('pages in a documentation set'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail what 'docName' represents (e.g., format, examples), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 specific action ('Retrieves'), resource ('condensed, LLM-friendly index of the pages in a documentation set'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning 'initial exploration' and contrasting with 'get_docs_page' for full content. It goes beyond just restating the name/title.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('for initial exploration to understand what's covered and identify relevant pages') and provides a clear alternative ('Follow up with get_docs_page to get full content'), which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like get_docs_full, list_docs, and search_docs.

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