encode-toolkit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the scope of returned metadata (files, quality metrics, controls, replicate information, audit status) and output format (JSON with full details and file listing), which enhances behavioral context beyond 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 with clear sections (purpose, returns, usage guidelines, related tools, args, returns) and front-loaded key information. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy 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 complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) plus an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and output format adequately, with no missing critical context for an AI agent.

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 carries full burden. It clearly explains the 'accession' parameter as 'ENCODE experiment accession' with examples (e.g., 'ENCSR133RZO', 'ENCSR000AKS'), adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules, leaving minor gaps.

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 'Get' and resource 'full details for a specific ENCODE experiment by accession ID', distinguishing it from siblings like encode_list_files (list files) or encode_search_experiments (search). It specifies the exact scope of returned data, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated.

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 that states 'Use when you have a specific accession and need full details including files, quality metrics, and audit status', and lists RELATED TOOLS (encode_list_files, encode_track_experiment, encode_compare_experiments) to guide alternatives. This provides clear context and exclusions for usage.

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