mgnify_study_analyses

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 only says 'List analyses produced from a study' and discloses nothing about pagination behavior, return structure, or that it's a read-only operation. The output schema exists but the description doesn't hint at any quirks or constraints.

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?

A single clear sentence with no filler. It's appropriately short for a simple list operation, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 straightforward list tool with an output schema, this might be adequate, but given no annotations and no explicit alternative routing, an agent may not know when to choose this over similar siblings. The description doesn't explain the study-to-analyses relationship or how to obtain a valid accession beyond the schema example.

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 itself provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (page, size, accession with example), so the description adds little. Since schema coverage of parameters is effectively high (each parameter has a description), a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description doesn't compensate for the nested 'params' object, but that's structural and not critical.

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 it lists analyses produced from a study, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like mgnify_run_analyses (analyses from a run) and mgnify_list_analyses (generic list), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a study accession) or contrast with similar tools like mgnify_run_analyses or mgnify_list_analyses. An agent has to infer usage from the name and schema.

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