encode-toolkit

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains this creates a provenance record (a write operation that establishes relationships), specifies it's for tracking derived files (not raw data), and mentions it 'creates a provenance chain back to source.' Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not destructive, and idempotent, but the description usefully clarifies the nature of the creation operation.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, related tools, args, returns), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. The bullet-point style for parameters is efficient and scannable.

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?

Complete for a creation tool with annotations and output schema: describes purpose, usage context, all parameters thoroughly, and notes the return value (JSON with provenance record ID). The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, and annotations cover safety aspects, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear explanations for all 6 parameters in the 'Args' section, including examples and formatting details (e.g., list format for source_accessions, example values for file_type and tool_used), adding essential meaning not present in the 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 with specific verb ('Log') and resource ('file you've derived from ENCODE data'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for provenance tracking of derived files rather than downloading, searching, or managing existing ENCODE data.

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?

Explicitly states 'WHEN TO USE: Use after creating files from ENCODE data' with concrete examples (filtered peaks, merged signals), and provides RELATED TOOLS (encode_get_provenance, encode_download_files) for context about alternatives and related operations.

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