mgnify_list_samples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a read-only operation, nor any pagination or rate-limit behavior. The term 'search' implies non-destructive intent, but this is not explicit, and response format is omitted.

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?

Single sentence with clear purpose, filters, and next step. Efficient and front-loaded; no wasted words.

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 list/search tool, the description covers purpose, filters, and follow-up. It does not mention pagination or output shape, but these are implied by the schema and the tool's nature. Adequate for the moderate complexity.

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 provides descriptive text for all parameters (page, size, order, search, biome_lineage). The description names only three filters, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline 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?

Description clearly states 'Search samples' with specific filters, and differentiates from siblings by framing it as discovery ('discover biological material') with a follow-up action. This distinguishes it from get_sample, study_samples, and others.

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?

Provides context on when to use: to discover biological material, then drill into runs/analyses. It implies this is for broad sample discovery rather than specific lookups, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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