encode-toolkit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains the tool can export in multiple formats (BibTeX/RIS) and returns publication data with specific fields (authors, journal, DOI, PMID). This enhances understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It uses bullet points for export formats and separates sections (description, when to use, related tools, args, returns) clearly. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, annotations, output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and behavioral context (export formats). With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values, and the annotations handle safety aspects. The description fills all necessary gaps effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed semantics for both parameters: 'accession' is explained as 'Specific experiment accession. If None, returns all publications,' and 'export_format' is described with options and use cases (e.g., 'BibTeX format for LaTeX'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible nuances like format specifics.

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: 'Get publications and citations for tracked experiments.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('publications and citations'), and scope ('for tracked experiments'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like encode_get_references or encode_get_experiment. The mention of export formats (BibTeX/RIS) further clarifies functionality.

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 an explicit 'WHEN TO USE' section: 'Use to get publication data for tracked experiments.' It also lists 'RELATED TOOLS' (encode_track_experiment, encode_link_reference), providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. This gives the agent specific guidance on tool selection.

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