mgnify_study_publications

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

The description is transparent about the tool's read-only nature ('List' indicates no side effects). There are no annotations to contradict this, and the description matches the expected behavior of a listing operation. Minor ambiguity remains about pagination or response format, but these are not hidden side effects.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's purpose.

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 adequately communicates the core functionality for a simple listing tool. It does not mention when to prefer this over sibling tools or describe the output format, but these are implied by the tool name, parameter schema, and output schema. Given the low complexity, the description is sufficient.

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 descriptions for all parameters ('accession', 'page', 'size'), covering their meaning. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific guidance. Since schema coverage of parameter descriptions is high, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists publications linked to a study, which is a specific and unambiguous action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'mgnify_list_publications' (which lists all publications) and 'mgnify_get_publication' (which fetches a single publication).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the tool name and required 'accession' parameter imply it is for retrieving publications for a specific study. No direct comparison or guidance is provided, so the usage context is inferred rather than stated.

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