confgen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool is long-running, asynchronous (returns a job_id), and writes output to a specific file (<jobname>-out.maegz in the job directory). This provides sufficient transparency about the execution model and output, though it omits details like success/failure indicators.

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 concise, consisting of two efficient sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then gives critical preconditions and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input requirements, supported formats, execution model, and output location. It lacks details on retrieving results via job_id or troubleshooting, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward long-running job.

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 0% description coverage, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter explanations. The description mentions the input path implicitly ('Input must contain explicit hydrogens') and the jobname in the output filename, but does not explain parameters like max_conformers or optimize. Thus, the description adds only minimal parameter context.

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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a conformer ensemble for ligands with ConfGen.' It uses a specific verb (generate) and resource (conformer ensemble), and references the specific program ConfGen. Among siblings, no other tool explicitly generates conformer ensembles, so it is well-distinguished.

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 precondition: 'Input must contain explicit hydrogens (run ligprep first).' It also notes that the tool is long-running and returns a job_id. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks, though no direct alternative is present among siblings.

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