mgnify_run_analyses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, does not mention pagination behavior (though the schema covers page and size), and does not disclose error conditions or rate limits. The description is too sparse to adequately inform an agent about behavioral traits beyond the bare operation.

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 filler words. It front-loads the primary action and scope immediately. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly concise and well-structured for its minimal length.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema (so return format need not be explained), the description lacks essential context for an agent to reliably choose it. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like mgnify_study_analyses, and it omits any guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. The description is minimal and leaves an agent to guess usage nuances, which is insufficient for confident tool selection.

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 no information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema itself includes descriptions for accession (e.g., 'ERR1234567'), page, and size, but the tool description does not elaborate on their semantics or relationships. With schema description coverage indicated as 0%, the description was expected to compensate, but it provides zero parameter-level detail, failing to add any value beyond the schema.

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 'List analyses produced from a single run' states a specific verb (list), a clear resource (analyses), and a distinct scope (single run). It naturally differentiates from siblings like mgnify_study_analyses (which would be from a study) and mgnify_list_analyses (which lists all analyses). The purpose is unambiguous and immediately scoped.

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 implies when to use it (when you have a run accession and want its analyses), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of mgnify_study_analyses or mgnify_list_analyses as alternatives, so an agent must infer the usage context. This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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