mgnify_get_analysis

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. It adds value by listing response fields (pipeline_version, downloads, results_dir), which hints at the return structure. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only, though 'Get' implies it. The added field list is useful but not comprehensive.

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 sentence with no redundant phrases. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the additional field list is concise. It earns a high score for brevity, though the lack of usage guidance means it is not maximally informative.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, simple get operation) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It states the purpose, gives an accession example, and hints at the response contents. The only gap is explicit usage context versus siblings, but that is addressed under usage_guidelines. For an agent to invoke the tool correctly, it has enough information.

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 schema already describes the only parameter 'accession' with an example ('MGYA00012345'). The tool description repeats this example but adds no new semantic constraints, format details, or edge-case behavior. Since schema description coverage is 0% from the tool text, the description should compensate, but it does not go beyond what the schema provides, offering minimal extra meaning.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('one analysis by MGnify accession'), with a concrete example format. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mgnify_get_genome or mgnify_get_run by explicitly targeting analyses by accession. The mention of included fields (pipeline_version, downloads, results_dir) further clarifies the scope.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mgnify_study_analyses or mgnify_run_analyses. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer selection based on the name. There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where other tools are preferred.

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