Genetic distance between two breeds (top-10-PC Euclidean). Lower = more genetically similar.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| breed_a | Yes | ||
| breed_b | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires permissions. The metric explanation is helpful but behavioral traits are missing.
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 that packs significant information (type of distance, interpretation). It is efficient and front-loaded, but could be slightly improved by also briefly noting parameter requirements.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description lacks guidance on parameter semantics and does not clarify usage context relative to sibling tools like nearest_breeds. For a tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this is insufficient.
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%, but the description adds no additional meaning for the two parameters (breed_a, breed_b). It does not specify expected format, valid values, or provide examples. Schema only gives names.
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 computes genetic distance using top-10-PC Euclidean and clarifies that lower values indicate more similarity. It distinguishes from siblings like nearest_breeds (which likely finds closest breeds to a single breed) and breed_summary.
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?
Usage is implied for pairwise similarity but no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. For example, if the user wants to find the closest relatives of one breed, nearest_breeds would be better, but this is not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear purposes, but some overlap exists between disease-related tools (disease_lookup vs disease_links) and between ask and ask_the_graph. Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent might still misselect.
Naming patterns are inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (ask, search_diseases), others use noun_noun (breed_similarity, disease_bridge), and some use descriptive phrases. No consistent convention observed.
18 tools is well-scoped for a canine genetics knowledge base. Each tool serves a distinct function covering breed, disease, variant, and query capabilities without being overwhelming.
The tool set covers all major aspects of the domain: breed profiles, disease lookup with links, variant querying, semantic search, and metadata. No obvious gaps for the stated educational purpose.
