mgnify_sample_runs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral clarity. It implies a read-only listing operation, but side effects, permissions, and pagination behavior are not described beyond the schema's parameter details.

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 unnecessary words or redundancy. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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 filtered list operation, the description combined with the schema's parameter details is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit output format details, but the action is straightforward and the optional pagination parameters are well-defined in the schema.

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 detailed descriptions for accession, page, and size, including an example accession. The tool description adds little beyond clarifying that runs are tied to a sample, so it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('List') and the resource ('sequencing runs') and indicates the relationship to a sample. It is specific enough to distinguish from listing all runs, though it could be more explicit by mentioning 'for a given sample accession'.

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?

No annotations or guidance are provided. The description does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings like mgnify_list_runs or how it fits into workflows, leaving usage conditions implicit.

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