analyze_cell_communication

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'analyze,' which is vague. It does not disclose potential side effects, data creation, or performance implications, leaving the agent with limited understanding of tool behavior.

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 extremely concise, fitting in one sentence and an Args block. While it avoids verbosity, it lacks structure and could better organize parameter details. The brevity is acceptable but misses opportunities for clarity.

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 (many parameters, nested input) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, output format, or what results are generated. The schema covers parameters well, but the tool's purpose and outputs are under-described.

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 description mentions only four parameters (data_id, species, cell_type_key, method) and provides a specific tip for liana_resource. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description should compensate but fails to explain the many other parameters. The schema itself has descriptions, so baseline is 3, but the description's minimal addition reduces the score.

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: 'Analyze cell-cell communication and ligand-receptor interaction patterns.' This verb-resource pair is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_enrichment or analyze_spatial_statistics.

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 provides some usage guidance by listing required parameters and a special case for mouse data with liana. However, it lacks explicit direction on when to choose this tool over alternatives, such as comparing conditions or analyzing spatial statistics. The method constraints per species are noted but not fully integrated into usage scenarios.

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