screen_exogenous

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses deterministic behavior, EMITS evidence only, and explains the exclusion logic for biologically exogenous compounds. It also describes the output (surfaces xenobiotic-class names) and its purpose for reclassification.

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 informative but slightly lengthy. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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 tool has one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and purpose. It does not describe return format or how to use results, but it is fairly complete for a screening tool. The missing param documentation is a minor gap.

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?

Only one parameter (workdir) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention the workdir parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what value to provide. While workdir is self-explanatory, the lack of documentation is a gap.

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?

Description explicitly states it screens for xenobiotics (non-biological) using LC-MS additives, surfactants, etc., and distinguishes from biologically exogenous compounds. It clearly defines the scope and differentiates from the broader 'exogenous' class. The verb 'screen' and specific resource 'xenobiotic' are clear.

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?

Description explains when to use (for xenobiotic detection) and when not (for biologically exogenous compounds, which require reasoning). It mentions that the driver can reclassify surfaced names. This provides clear context for tool selection.

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