Genomic-Agent-Discovery

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a safe, non-destructive operation, but the description lacks specifics about return format, filtering capabilities, or whether findings are cached versus real-time. Adequate but minimal behavioral disclosure.

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: the first declares functionality, the second declares utility. No redundant phrases or tautologies. Information density is high with zero waste.

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 zero-parameter input schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and intent. Could be improved by briefly describing the structure of returned findings or any scope limitations (e.g., temporal range).

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 contains zero parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The description correctly implies no filtering parameters are available ('Read all findings'), consistent 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Read') and resource ('findings published by other agents'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'publish_finding' (write vs read) and database query tools by emphasizing cross-agent research aggregation.

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 explicit use cases ('understand cross-domain patterns, avoid duplicating research, and build on others' discoveries') that clarify when to invoke the tool. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or named alternatives, though the use cases sufficiently imply appropriate context.

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