Breed-stratified allele frequency. Give a breed (e.g. 'bernese_mountain_dog') plus either a variant position or a gene symbol. Returns AF (+ rank) for the variant, or per-variant AFs in the gene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| gene | No | ||
| breed | Yes | ||
| variant | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return format and input constraints. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Missing details on behavior when both variant and gene are provided (schema allows both, description says 'either...or').
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every word adds value. No redundancy or wasted text.
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?
Explains inputs and outputs adequately. Output schema exists (not shown), so return values are covered. Could mention that breed is required and that variant and gene are optional. Minor omission on exclusivity.
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 description adds meaning: explains 'breed' with example, and clarifies 'variant' as variant position and 'gene' as gene symbol. Does not explain default empty strings or mutual exclusivity, but adds value beyond 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?
Clearly states it provides breed-stratified allele frequency. Specifies inputs (breed plus variant or gene) and outputs (AF and rank for variant, per-variant AFs for gene). Distinct from sibling tools like variant_lookup or 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?
Explicitly describes when to use: given a breed and either a variant or gene symbol. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but the context is clear.
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.
