get_mole_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of expressing behavior. It clearly presents this as a read-only get operation that retrieves stored analytical results, and adds the useful detail that the results include ABCDE scores. It does not warn about missing moles or auth constraints, but nothing in the description suggests destructive or side-effectful behavior.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by the concrete score list and an intended usage. Every part contributes useful information and there is no filler.

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 is simple, has one fully described parameter, and no output schema. The description tells the agent what data will be returned (ABCDE scores) and what to use it for (explaining results to users). It is nearly complete, though it does not enumerate any additional return fields beyond ABCDE scores.

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 input schema has a single parameter, moleId, with a 100% schema description coverage: 'The mole's unique identifier.' The description reaffirms the parameter is a specific mole but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already covers the necessary semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('detailed ML analysis results for a specific mole') and spells out the ABCDE score components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_moles, get_mole_changes, and compare_moles without needing to open the input schema.

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 a clear intended context: 'Use this to explain analysis results to users.' It does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or state when not to use it, but the stated purpose is enough for an agent to select it for user-facing explanations of mole analysis.

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