run_rosetta_scripts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the context that execution requires a local binary. It does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., file creation in out_dir) or behavior of the external process. The description adds moderate value 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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds necessary information (main action, usage context, prerequisite). No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 (5 params, 3 required, no output schema) and many siblings, the description provides the essential purpose and a key prerequisite but lacks details on outputs, error behavior, or how it fits among related tools like rosetta_scripts_schema. It is minimally adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and clearly identifies the resource (RosettaScripts XML protocol on a PDB file). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that handle conversion, installation, or documentation, making its 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?

The description explicitly states 'Use when executing Rosetta protocols' and notes a critical prerequisite (local installation of rosetta_scripts binary). However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools from the sibling list, such as xml_to_pyrosetta or rosetta_scripts_schema.

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