genome_lineage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Return ancestry' and the ordering. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what happens when a genomeId is absent from the supplied genomes, or what the output contains beyond ordering. The verb 'Return' implies a read, but that implication is not enough for zero-annotation coverage.

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. It fronts the core purpose and adds the key ordering detail, so every word earns its place.

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 only two parameters, but no output schema and no annotations. The description tells the result order but not the output format or edge cases such as whether the ancestry is returned as IDs or full genome objects. Given the sizable genomes input schema, a bit more context about the returned shape would make the tool fully usable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by calling the array parameter a 'supplied population/history' and framing genomeId as targeting one genome, which helps map the two parameters. However, it does not explain the semantics of the required genome fields in the array items, though the schema already details those.

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 specific resource ('ancestry'), the target ('a genome'), and the order of results ('parent-before-child'). It is clearly different from siblings like genome_seed or genome_evolve, though it does not explicitly name them, so it stops short of a top score.

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 instead of alternatives such as genome_infer_phenotypes or genome_evolve. It also does not say when this tool is not appropriate or what conditions trigger its use.

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