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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 'matching pages ranked by relevance with their paths and descriptions,' which adds value beyond the input schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination, leaving gaps for a search tool.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 moderate complexity (search with ranking), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, usage, and return format but misses details on parameters, error cases, and full behavioral context, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It implies 'docName' refers to a 'documentation set' and 'query' is for 'keywords, concepts, or topics,' but doesn't explain their formats, constraints, or examples. This adds minimal meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Searches a documentation set for specific content' with specific verbs (search, find) and resources (documentation set, pages). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'Follow up with get_docs_page to get full content,' though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings like get_docs_full or get_docs_index.

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 provides clear context on when to use it: 'Use this to find pages containing particular keywords, concepts, or topics' and suggests an alternative for follow-up: 'Follow up with get_docs_page to get full content.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare to all sibling tools like get_docs_full or list_docs.

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