analyze_cnv

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the tool may modify data. The description merely says 'analyze' without clarifying behavioral aspects like whether it returns results, modifies the dataset, or requires locks. It adds no behavioral context beyond annotations, so minimal transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section adds necessary parameter context without being overly verbose. Effective for its length.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and highlights key parameters but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., data must be loaded), the return type/output, and behavioral characteristics. Given the tool's complexity, more completion would be beneficial.

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?

Top-level schema parameters lack descriptions, but the description's Args section summarizes the required (reference_key, reference_categories) and optional (method/thresholds) sub-parameters, adding clarity beyond the schema. It highlights key parameters, though more detail on other sub-parameters could be included.

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?

Clearly states it analyzes CNVs in spatial transcriptomics data. The verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_cell_communication or analyze_enrichment.

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 implies the tool is for CNV analysis but does not compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The mention of required parameters (reference_key, reference_categories) gives some usage constraints, but lacks explicit contextual guidance relative to sibling tools.

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