mgnify_get_super_study

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

The description implies a read-only operation (get) but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or permissions. It mentions the response fields, which is useful behavioral information, but without annotations, transparency about side effects is incomplete.

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 compact, using only two sentences to convey the action, the identifier format, and the response structure. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 includes the response embedded fields (flagship_studies, related_studies, genome_catalogues) and illustrates the identifier with examples, providing solid context. However, it could clarify the distinction from the list super-studies tool, but the given details are largely sufficient.

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 description explains the parameter as a 'url-slug' and provides three concrete examples, clarifying the expected format and values. This adds meaningful detail beyond the schema's basic description, which is sparse.

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 ('a super-study') with a specific identifier (url-slug). It also provides concrete examples, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provide guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like mgnify_list_super_studies or mgnify_get_study. It lacks any contextual cues about selection criteria, making it harder for an agent to choose the right tool.

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