encode-toolkit

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

The annotations already provide important behavioral hints (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds valuable context beyond these annotations by explaining this is a 'powerful' tool for 'cross-experiment file discovery,' providing concrete usage examples, and mentioning pagination behavior in the Returns section. It doesn't contradict 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 statement, power explanation, examples, usage guidelines, related tools, parameters, and returns. While comprehensive, every section earns its place by adding value. The examples are particularly efficient at conveying complex usage patterns. Minor points deducted for some redundancy between the initial statement and 'WHEN TO USE' section.

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 (15 parameters, cross-experiment searching), the description provides excellent context. It explains the tool's power and scope, provides multiple concrete examples, gives explicit usage guidance, lists related tools, documents all parameters, and describes the return format. With annotations covering safety/behavioral aspects and an output schema existing, the description is complete for this search tool.

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 (only titles, no descriptions), the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It provides an 'Args' section that lists all 15 parameters with brief explanations and includes concrete examples showing how multiple parameters can be combined in real queries (e.g., 'file_format="bed", assay_title="Histone ChIP-seq", organ="pancreas"'). This adds significant semantic value 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 with specific verbs ('search files across ALL experiments') and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning 'More powerful than encode_list_files for cross-experiment file discovery.' It provides both the action (search) and scope (across all experiments with combined filters).

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 to find specific file types across ALL experiments' and provides a direct comparison to encode_list_files. It also lists related tools (encode_list_files, encode_batch_download, encode_get_file_info) to guide the agent toward alternatives when appropriate.

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