genome_trial_plan

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and safety, and it does not. 'Translate' weakly implies a conversion rather than a mutation, but the description does not state whether the operation is read-only, persists anything, returns a plan object, or has validation or authorization requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the schema. It is efficient, though the awkward slash chain 'target/policy/profile' reduces clarity slightly.

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?

This tool has two highly nested required objects, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is far too thin. It does not explain what the trial plan contains, what 'bounded' constrains, how the phenotype influences the result, or what the return value looks like.

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 for the undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'genome' and says nothing about the equally required 'phenotype' parameter, nor does it explain what target/policy/profile mean or how the parameters relate to the generated plan.

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 names a specific transformation (genome → trial plan) and the output concept is at least distinguishable from sibling actions like seeding, evolving, or inferring phenotypes. However, it never mentions the required phenotype input and the phrase 'bounded target/policy/profile trial plan' is domain jargon that leaves the actual deliverable vague.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus genome_seed, genome_evolve, genome_infer_phenotypes, or genome_lineage. The agent must infer from the name and one-line description that it is for producing a trial plan, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are given.

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