mgnify_list_biomes

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

It discloses the key behavior of biome_lineage (prefix matching with descendants) and specifies that each item includes biome_name and lineage. Pagination behavior is not mentioned, but that is standard and inferable from the schema, and no annotations exist to contradict the description.

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, front-loads the primary action, and uses code formatting for parameters. There is no unnecessary detail or redundancy.

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 is complete enough for a straightforward list operation, covering the core functionality, filtering options, and output structure. It omits explicit mention of pagination parameters, but these are standard and present in the schema, so the overall context is adequate.

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 adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that biome_lineage matches prefixes and all descendants, and that max_depth caps the lineage depth. Page and size are not described, but they are standard pagination parameters with schema descriptions.

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 that the tool lists biomes and provides examples of environmental categories (soil, marine, gut). It also specifies filtering by biome_lineage and optional max_depth, making the primary purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides concrete examples of biome_lineage values and explains that it matches prefixes and includes descendants, which aids in deciding when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, but the name and description are sufficiently self-explanatory.

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