get_cell_types

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('a formatted list with identifiers and URLs') and the domain scope, but says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, rate limits, or ordering. For a simple listing tool the gaps are modest, so a 3 is fair.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The enumeration of kingdoms is longer than strictly necessary but earns its place by defining what 'all cell types' actually spans, which helps the agent decide relevance.

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 not be detailed further. With zero params and a clear scope statement, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. Only workflow placement is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline 4 applies.

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 and resource: 'List all available cell types on SwissBioPics.' The scope ('all') distinguishes it from get_cell_type_detail, though that sibling is not named explicitly. Clear on its own, but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this versus get_cell_type_detail or the search tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context beyond the implicit assumption that a discovery listing is wanted. The agent must infer the placement in the workflow.

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