encode-toolkit

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

The annotations already provide key behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, openWorldHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false), indicating a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds value by specifying the tool's role in preventing typos and its use before searching, which gives practical context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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: it starts with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, related tools, parameter details, and return value. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The bullet-point list for parameter options is clear and efficient.

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 (1 parameter with enums, annotations covering safety, and an output schema indicated), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, usage, parameters in detail, and return value ('JSON list of valid values'), addressing all necessary aspects. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to elaborate on return format, and it effectively covers the parameter semantics despite low schema coverage.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (no schema descriptions), but the description compensates fully by detailing the parameter in the 'Args' section. It explains 'metadata_type: Type of metadata to retrieve' and lists all 12 enum options with examples (e.g., 'assays': Available assay types (Histone ChIP-seq, ATAC-seq, RNA-seq, etc.)'), adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 available filter values for ENCODE searches' and 'Use this to discover valid values for search parameters.' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('filter values'), and domain ('ENCODE searches'), distinguishing it from siblings like encode_search_experiments (which performs searches) and encode_get_facets (which retrieves facet counts).

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'WHEN TO USE: Use to discover valid filter values before searching. Helps prevent typos in assay_title, organ, biosample_type etc.' It also lists 'RELATED TOOLS: encode_get_facets, encode_search_experiments,' indicating alternatives and context for when to use this tool versus others.

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