mgnify_get_sample

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It mentions the return fields but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. As a 'get' operation this is somewhat implied, but not disclosed.

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 two sentences that are concise and front-load the primary action. It efficiently conveys the purpose and expected output without extraneous detail.

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?

The description lists the return fields (title, biome, metadata, related studies), which provides useful context. Since there is an output schema (though not shown), and this is a simple single-sample fetch, the description is adequately complete, though it omits any mention of error conditions.

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 parameter 'accession' already has a clear description in the schema (e.g., 'ERS123456' or 'SRS123456'), and the tool description repeats this example. This adds little beyond the schema, so the parameter semantics are adequately covered but not enhanced.

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 one sample' and specifies the resource type and identifier format with an example. It is specific enough to distinguish from other sample-related tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when you need a single sample by accession vs. listing samples). It provides an example but no context about prerequisites or conditions that make this the appropriate choice.

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