AGR MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it indicates this is a read operation ('Get'), it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid gene IDs. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with zero waste. Front-loaded with the main action and includes specific examples of what information is retrieved. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose but lacks completeness regarding behavioral aspects. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally describe response format or error handling to be fully complete for agent use.

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 fully documents the single 'gene_id' parameter with examples. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific gene'), with specific details about what information is included ('symbol, name, location, species, and cross-references'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_gene_alleles' or 'get_gene_diseases' by being a general information retrieval tool rather than focused on specific aspects.

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 when detailed gene information is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'search_genes' or other gene-specific tools. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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