Rowan MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool 'submits' a workflow and returns a 'Workflow object,' indicating it's a write operation that creates something. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, costs (beyond max_credits), or error handling. The example adds practical context but doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence, an 'Args' section listing parameters, additional explanatory text, a 'Returns' section, and an example. It's appropriately sized but could be more front-loaded; the core purpose is stated early, but some details are spread out. Overall, it's efficient with little waste.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and includes an example, but lacks output details (beyond mentioning a 'Workflow object'), error handling, or integration context with sibling tools. For a submission tool with multiple parameters, more contextual information would be beneficial.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, such as clarifying that 'folder_uuid' uses a default folder if empty and 'max_credits' of 0 means no limit. This provides slight enhancement, but most semantics are covered in the schema, warranting a baseline-adjusted score.

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: 'Submit a redox potential calculation workflow using Rowan v2 API' and 'Calculates reduction and/or oxidation potentials for a molecule using quantum chemistry methods.' It specifies the action (submit), resource (redox potential calculation workflow), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_admet_workflow or submit_pka_workflow by focusing on redox potentials.

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 implies usage through the example and parameter descriptions but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't compare with submit_basic_calculation_workflow or other workflow tools, leaving the agent to infer based on the redox focus. Some guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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