get_structure

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states what the tool does without mentioning permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. It fails to add meaningful context beyond the basic operation, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or structural fluff, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with essential information.

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 of retrieving structure predictions, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., coordinates, confidence scores), potential errors, or dependencies, leaving significant gaps for effective tool 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 fully documents both parameters (uniprotId and format). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining format implications or uniprotId validation, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('AlphaFold structure prediction'), and target ('for a specific UniProt ID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'download_structure' or 'get_confidence_scores' by focusing on retrieval of the primary prediction data rather than downloading files or obtaining metadata.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'download_structure' (which might handle file downloads) or 'get_prediction_metadata' (for metadata). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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