mgnify_get_genome

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate behavior. It says 'Returns length, completeness, taxon_lineage, etc.', indicating a read-only retrieval, but it does not mention possible error cases, absence of a genome, or any side effects. The basic behavior is clear, but not fully transparent.

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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It states the action, the key parameter, and the primary return fields without unnecessary elaboration.

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 single-resource retrieval tool, the description includes enough context: the identifier format, an example, and expected return fields. It does not document all possible output details, but the essentials are present and sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 only parameter, accession, is already fully documented in the schema with a description and example. The tool description reinforces this by repeating the example. No additional parameter meaning is needed, though the description adds no new detail 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 clearly states the tool fetches one genome by MGnify accession, provides an example accession, and indicates the kind of data returned (length, completeness, taxon_lineage). This unambiguously distinguishes it from listing operations among sibling tools.

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 implies use when a single genome is needed by accession, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like mgnify_list_genomes or how to handle multiple genomes. Some guidance is inferable, but not directly stated.

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