get_pathway_genes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive. The description adds no new behavioral details beyond what annotations imply. It does not contradict annotations, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a brief structured note for the argument. Every sentence is essential, and the information is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the parameter semantics and the core function. Minor omission: it doesn't mention potential errors or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity and annotations, this is acceptable.

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 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'pathway_id'. However, the tool description fully compensates by explaining the parameter: its type (KEGG pathway ID), an example, and a vital constraint about unsupported reference pathways. This adds significant meaning beyond the 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 uses specific verb+resource: 'Get all genes associated with a KEGG pathway.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like search_genes or get_pathway_compounds by focusing on the association between genes and a KEGG pathway.

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 the type of pathway IDs to use (organism-specific, not reference pathways) and includes a concrete example. While it does not directly compare to alternatives, it provides clear constraints on when the tool works, which guides appropriate usage.

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