encode-toolkit

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

Annotations cover read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and open-world hints, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the type of metadata returned (e.g., size, md5, assembly) and mentioning a download URL, which provides useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction with 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, usage, args, returns), front-loaded key information, and no wasted sentences. Each part earns its place by adding value, such as the example for the parameter and specifics on return data.

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 low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return values adequately, with the output schema handling detailed return structure.

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 explains the 'accession' parameter with an example ('ENCFF635JIA'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or validation rules, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 specific action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific ENCODE file'), distinguishing it from siblings like encode_list_files (which lists files) and encode_download_files (which downloads). It specifies the type of metadata returned, making the purpose explicit and distinct.

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 when to use this tool ('when you need detailed metadata for a specific file') and lists related tools (encode_download_files, encode_list_files) as alternatives, providing clear 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.