analyze_cell_communication

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

Annotations indicate idempotent and open-world behavior. The description adds no additional behavioral context; it does not contradict annotations, but fails to disclose potential side effects or limitations.

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 structured with an Args section and is relatively concise for the information it provides. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though some content could be condensed.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (many parameters, methods), the description omits details on output structure, spatial analysis implications, or how to interpret results. An output schema exists but is not accessible; the description should provide more context.

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 tool description covers 0% of parameters according to context, only naming data_id and stating required fields in params. It provides minimal guidance beyond the schema, which itself has detailed descriptions. This does not compensate for low coverage.

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 analyzes cell-cell communication and ligand-receptor patterns. This purpose is specific and distinct from sibling tools like CNV or enrichment analysis, though no explicit contrast is made.

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 mentions required parameters (species, cell_type_key, method) and provides a tip for mouse data, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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