mgnify_get_study

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, potential error conditions, or any other side effects. The description only states the returned fields without elaborating on behavioral nuances.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core action, the parameter, and the expected return fields.

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 retrieval tool, the description provides enough context: it names the returned fields and gives an example accession. Combined with the existing input schema, an agent can invoke the tool correctly. It does not cover error handling or detailed return format, but that is adequately handled by the output schema (not shown here).

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 already includes a description and example for the accession parameter. The tool description adds an example ('MGYS00005292') and reiterates the parameter's purpose, but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers. With the schema covering the parameter, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's action: get a single study by MGnify accession, with an explicit example. It distinguishes from sibling list/get tools by focusing on a single study fetch.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mgnify_list_studies or mgnify_study_analyses. It only implies usage for a known accession, but lacks direct guidance on when not to use it or which sibling is preferable.

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