Single-variant lookup by CanFam4 position: ref/alt, global + popmax AF, consequence, gene, ESM2/Pangolin/phyloP, deleteriousness tier, canonical URL, provenance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| position | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description bears full burden. Describes outputs but not behavior on missing variants (error vs null) or input format requirements beyond 'CanFam4 position'. Adequate but not fully transparent.
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?
Single dense sentence with no filler. Front-loads key information: lookup type, coordinate system, and output summary. Every word adds value.
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?
With output schema present, description need not detail return structure. Lists output fields adequately. Missing error handling on missing variants, but completeness is strong overall.
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?
Only parameter 'position' has no schema description (0% coverage). Description adds critical context: coordinate system (CanFam4) and lists output fields. However, exact format (e.g., 'chr:pos') is implied but not explicit.
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?
Description clearly states 'single-variant lookup by CanFam4 position' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling 'variant_search' which handles multiple variants. Output fields are listed, making purpose unambiguous.
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?
Implied use case for detailed single-variant lookup, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'variant_search' or 'ask_variant_context'. Missing 'when not to use' statements.
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.
