Genomic-Agent-Discovery

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses specific methodology (sex determination from X chromosome heterozygosity) and return content, but omits operational details like whether this is read-only, caching behavior, or computational cost.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: first defines functionality and outputs, second provides usage timing. Zero redundancy. Information density is high with no filler.

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 summary tool without output schema, the description adequately covers what data is returned. Could be improved by mentioning output format structure or indicating if the summary is cached/updated in real-time.

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 (coverage 100%), establishing baseline 4. Description correctly implies no filtering is possible (returns overall patient summary), which aligns with the empty schema.

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 uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'patient's genotype data' and enumerates exact outputs (variant count, chromosome distribution, sex from X heterozygosity). Clearly positions itself as a summary/overview tool distinct from sibling query tools like query_genotype or get_acmg_genes.

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?

Explicitly states 'Call this first to understand the scope of data available,' providing clear workflow positioning. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for when NOT to use it (e.g., when detailed variant data is needed instead of summary stats).

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