mgnify_study_samples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a read operation, but does not mention pagination behavior (page/size), the required 'accession' parameter, or any ordering/filtering details. The schema provides parameter details, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise, though it omits context that could be added without bloat. Efficiency is high, but it sacrifices completeness.

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 tool has a required accession and pagination parameters, and an output schema exists. The description is too terse to provide the necessary context for correct invocation, such as indicating that a study accession is required or that results are paginated. While the schema covers parameter details, the description fails to orient the agent on the tool's scope and typical usage within the larger set of MGnify tools.

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 descriptions for all parameters (page, size, accession) with defaults and examples, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter information, but the schema is sufficient. The description does not compensate for any gaps, but none exist in 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 states a clear verb ('List'), a specific resource ('samples'), and a scope ('that belong to a study'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like mgnify_list_samples (all samples) and mgnify_get_sample (single sample), though it does not name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention that this is the tool for scoping samples to a specific study, nor does it contrast with mgnify_list_samples or mgnify_study_analyses. An agent would have 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.