resolve_biotech_spatial_intent

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is 'immutable,' implying idempotent behavior and no side effects. It also specifies SI units (meters). However, it does not mention authorization needs, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 that is front-loaded with the action and key details (immutable, SI units). It is concise and avoids redundancy. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices completeness, which slightly reduces conciseness effectiveness.

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 two parameters with no schema descriptions and a likely transformation function, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the conversion formula, value ranges, or the meaning of the output metrics (even though an output schema exists). An agent would need to guess the tool's inner logic. For a translation tool, more context is expected.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no explanation for the parameters 'concentration_input' and 'plate_scale_mm.' Their names hint at meaning, but the description only references 'assay parameters' generically. The agent gets no additional semantic information beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 the verb 'translates' and specifies the result is 'immutable spatial metrics using SI base units (meters).' This clearly indicates a transformation of inputs to outputs in defined units, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'fetch_genomic_data' which retrieves data. However, 'assay parameters' is vague; it doesn't explicitly state that the tool computes something like spatial resolution or distance.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus any alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, such as required experimental conditions or data formats. While the sibling tool is different, explicit context for selection is missing.

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