mgnify_list_analyses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the pagination-only behavior and points to alternatives, but it does not mention output shape or pagination details. This is acceptable for a simple list operation, though slightly more detail could improve transparency.

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 concise sentences with no redundant wording. It efficiently conveys the purpose, limitation, and relevant alternatives.

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 listing tool, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, states the endpoint limitation, and names the appropriate sibling tools for filtered queries. No additional context is necessary for correct invocation.

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 documents the pagination parameters clearly, including page, size, defaults, and bounds. The description's note that the endpoint supports only pagination aligns with the schema. However, the required 'params' wrapper object itself is not explained, which is a minor gap.

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 uses the imperative 'List MGnify analyses' and clearly identifies the resource and endpoint. It also distinguishes this tool from filtered sibling tools by stating that the v2 /analyses/ endpoint supports only pagination.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: it supports only pagination, and users are directed to mgnify_study_analyses or mgnify_run_analyses for filtered lookups. This leaves no ambiguity about the intended use case.

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