ppi.classify_interactor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Boltz-2 structural gate' and classification from ipTM + flux relevance, but does not disclose how the classification works, required input formats, side effects, or prerequisites.

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, tightly packed with key information about purpose and inputs, with no extraneous words.

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?

With 6 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description lacks details on how to use session_id, expected return values, or the classification logic. Incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%. The description mentions 'ipTM + flux relevance' but does not map clearly to all six parameters (e.g., session_id, bait, prey are unexplained). Only partial meaning is added for iptm and flux-related parameters.

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 clearly states the verb 'classify', the resource 'bait/prey pair', and the output categories 'physical/regulatory/context_only'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'viz.render_ppi_metabolic', which is for visualization, not classification.

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 implies the tool is for structural classification using ipTM and flux relevance, but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria, nor mentions alternatives among siblings.

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