encode-toolkit

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it explains that the tool shows 'the chain from your derived files back to original ENCODE data' and details what information is included ('tools and parameters used'). This clarifies the tool's behavior and output scope, though it doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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, then provides usage guidelines, related tools, parameter explanations, and return information. Every sentence adds value—there's no redundancy or fluff. The use of sections (e.g., 'WHEN TO USE', 'Args:', 'Returns:') enhances readability without wasting space.

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, no required params), rich annotations (covering safety and idempotency), and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, parameter semantics, and return types ('JSON provenance chain or list of derived files'), leaving no gaps for the agent to infer. The output schema further reduces the need for detailed return value explanations.

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 semantic meaning for both parameters: 'file_path: Get provenance for a specific derived file' and 'source_accession: List all files derived from a specific ENCODE accession.' This clearly explains what each parameter does and the different use cases (single file vs. accession-based listing), adding significant value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format details (e.g., path syntax or accession patterns).

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 provenance information for derived files' and elaborates with 'Shows the chain from your derived files back to original ENCODE data, including what tools and parameters were used.' This is specific (verb+resource+scope) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like encode_get_file_info or encode_list_files by focusing on derivation chains rather than basic file metadata or listings.

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 trace a derived file back to original ENCODE data. Shows tools and parameters used.' It also names a related tool (encode_log_derived_file), providing clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives. This gives the agent explicit guidance on appropriate scenarios.

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