inspect_data

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true/openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with the dry-run framing and 'without changing anything'. It goes well beyond the annotations by enumerating the report contents (workflow, ready_to_run, missing[], cross_validation.issues, files_provided[], server.file_types) despite there being no output schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and constraint, then structured with a bulleted breakdown of report fields. It is long, but nearly every line carries actionable information; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

With no output schema and 0% param coverage, the description compensates fully: it explains input file types, detection behavior, glob syntax, and the exact report fields the agent must read and act on. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It documents `files` semantics ('glob patterns relative to the project, e.g. ["loci/*.fasta"]') and characterizes the Imap (sample -> species table), but does not state that `imap` is optional/defaulted to null.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Inspect the user's data files') and immediately qualifies scope with 'without changing anything (bpp-seqs --dry-run)'. This clearly distinguishes it from convert_data (which mutates) and check_environment (which precedes it).

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: 'Call after check_environment' and 'Next: convert_data with the same files and Imap.' It also describes what to do on missing inputs ('Ask the user for them') and on validation issues ('Explain them to the user before converting'), leaving nothing to inference.

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