Compare Experiments

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by listing the compared fields (organism, genome assembly, etc.) and mentioning the output format, which are beyond what annotations provide.

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 concisely structured with a clear purpose, comparison details, prerequisites, usage guidance, and parameter documentation in a well-organized format without redundancy.

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?

The description covers prerequisites, parameter semantics, and what fields are compared. It references an output schema, which is sufficient given the existence of a structured output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains both parameters with examples (e.g., 'ENCSR133RZO') and context that they are accession strings of tracked experiments.

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 tool's purpose: 'Analyze whether two ENCODE experiments are compatible for combined analysis.' It specifies the verb (analyze/compare) and resource (two experiments), and distinguishes from siblings by requiring prior tracking.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' guidance and prerequisites: 'Use to check if two experiments are compatible for combined analysis. Both must be tracked first (use encode_track_experiment).' It also lists related tools.

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