rosetta_to_biotite

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, indicating a safe, constrained read operation. The description adds that the tool returns a Biotite equivalent with working example code, which is consistent with a read operation. No contradictions or hidden side effects. The description provides useful extra context beyond annotations.

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 a single paragraph of four sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary directive. It covers the purpose and scope efficiently. Minor improvement could be using bullet points for categories, but it remains well-structured for its length.

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 mapping between two libraries across many categories, the description provides a comprehensive list of covered topics (structure I/O, SASA, etc.). Although it lacks explicit return format details (e.g., whether output is code string or code block), it implies 'working example code.' Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand usage.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described (query and category). The description adds meaning by listing example categories (e.g., 'Structure I/O', 'Geometry') and stating that it returns working example code, which enriches the semantic context for the agent when formulating queries.

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: 'Returns the Biotite equivalent of a Rosetta/PyRosetta function with working example code.' It specifies the verb 'Returns' and the resource 'Rosetta/PyRosetta function', and it distinguishes itself from the sibling 'biotite_to_rosetta' which does the reverse. The list of covered topics further clarifies scope.

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 explicitly says 'ALWAYS use this tool when asked about Rosetta vs Biotite equivalents.' This provides a clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling list hints at alternatives like 'translate_rosetta_script_to_biotite' for script-level translation. A score of 4 is appropriate for clear guidance without explicit exclusions.

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