Genomic-Agent-Discovery

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It compensates well by specifying the return format (gene name, condition, inheritance pattern) and data volume (73 genes), and notes the specific version (v3.2) for reproducibility. Could mention caching behavior or data freshness, but covers essential behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first defines the resource and version, second discloses return fields, third provides usage intent. No redundant text or boilerplate. Well front-loaded with the core action.

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 zero-parameter retrieval of a static standard list, the description is complete. It compensates for the missing output schema by detailing what fields are returned. The version number (v3.2) and gene count provide necessary context for clinical reproducibility.

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 has zero parameters. Per scoring rules, zero-parameter tools receive a baseline score of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering is needed by stating it returns the complete list of 73 genes.

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?

Description specifies exact resource (ACMG Secondary Findings v3.2 gene list), action (Get), and scope (73 genes). The specific reference to 'medically actionable genes' clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like query_gene or query_disease_genes which handle general gene queries.

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?

Provides clear usage context ('Use this to systematically check all medically actionable genes'), indicating when to use the tool for clinical screening. Lacks explicit naming of alternatives (e.g., 'use query_gene for non-ACMG genes'), but the specific ACMG scope makes the appropriate use case clear.

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