Atlas-Docs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns ('name, description and source url for each documentation set') and its prerequisite role, but doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents adequate but incomplete behavioral 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?

The description is perfectly concise with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the purpose, second provides usage guidance, third explains the return format and prerequisite nature. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides excellent context about purpose, usage sequencing, and return format. The only minor gap is the lack of output schema means the description doesn't fully specify the return structure, but for a discovery/list tool, the described return fields (name, description, source url) are sufficient for most use cases.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the description focuses on purpose and usage rather than parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Lists') and resource ('all available documentation libraries and frameworks'), and distinguishes it from siblings by explaining it's a discovery tool that must be used first to get docName values needed for other documentation tools. This provides excellent differentiation from sibling tools like get_docs_full, get_docs_index, get_docs_page, and search_docs.

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 when to use this tool ('as your first step to discover available documentation sets') and provides clear prerequisites ('Required before using other documentation tools since you need the docName'). This gives perfect guidance on when this tool should be used versus its alternatives.

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