sasa

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning the tool may have side effects, but the description only says 'calculate', which is ambiguous. It does not disclose whether outputs are written, the need for a topology file, or any behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide. The description adds minimal value.

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 short (one sentence), which is too terse for a tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions. While it is front-loaded, it lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 required, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema), the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters, expected inputs/outputs, or how the tool integrates with others, leaving the agent uninformed.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not mention any parameters or their roles, leaving the agent with no semantic information about required inputs like 'trajectory', 'tpr', or optional ones.

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 calculates solvent-accessible surface area using a specific command ('gmx sasa'). It provides a specific verb and resource, making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'hbond' or 'gyrate', but the name itself is distinct.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other GROMACS analysis tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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