Genetically nearest breeds to the given breed (top-10-PC Euclidean in canine genetic space). Answers 'what breeds are most genetically similar to X?' via the PCA-256 breed co-embedding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| k | No | ||
| breed | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the method (PCA-256 Euclidean) but does not state that the tool is read-only or safe. The mention of 'top-10-PC' might mislead about the k parameter's role, but the tool is inherently non-destructive.
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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. Every phrase adds value, making it optimal for quick agent scanning.
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 output schema exists, return value details are not needed. However, the description lacks parameter descriptions, error handling notes, and clarification on the k vs top-10 discrepancy. It is adequate but not fully complete.
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 must compensate. It barely references parameters: 'given breed' implies the breed parameter, and 'top-10' hints at the default k, but no explicit parameter descriptions or value ranges are provided.
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 function: finding genetically nearest breeds to a given breed using PCA-256 co-embedding. It answers a specific question and distinguishes from siblings like breed_summary by focusing on genetic similarity, though no explicit differentiation.
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 implicitly tells when to use by answering 'what breeds are most genetically similar to X?'. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like breed_similarity.
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.
