collapse_clade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the visual outcome (triangle+label vs cartoon) but says nothing about whether the underlying tree is mutated, whether tree_file/tree_content is required, permission needs, or reversibility.

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?

Short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first, followed by a compact Args example. No padding, though the example formatting is slightly noisy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, but this is a mutation-style tool with no annotations and three undocumented parameters. The critical distinction between tree_file and tree_content (likely mutually exclusive inputs) is never addressed, leaving the agent guessing.

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% and 4 parameters exist. The description richly documents the nested 'collapses' structure (taxa, label, collapse_type values), which is genuinely beyond the bare schema, but run_name, tree_file, and tree_content are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (collapse) and resource (clades) with the selection mechanism ('by exact taxon names') and the two output styles ('collapse' triangle+label vs 'cartoon'). This is clear enough to distinguish it from collapse_rank on style grounds, though it never names the siblings collapse_group or collapse_rank.

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 phrase 'by exact taxon names' implies the usage condition relative to group- or rank-based collapsing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative. The agent must infer routing from the phrase alone.

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