analyze_cnv

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it 'analyzes' CNVs, implying it may modify data or output results, but it doesn't provide additional behavioral specifics beyond what annotations give. No contradiction with 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 concise: two sentences plus an args bullet list. It starts with the purpose, making it easy to scan. The list is functional but could be integrated into prose. Overall, no wasted words.

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 (16 parameters in CNVParameters) and that output schema exists, the description should still guide on when to use different methods or how to set thresholds. It lacks such context, leaving the agent to rely entirely on the schema for configuration details.

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 (context signal), the description should compensate by explaining parameter roles. It only says 'Required - reference_key, reference_categories, and optional method/thresholds', which is insufficient. The schema itself has detailed descriptions, but the tool description adds little semantic value for parameter selection.

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 it analyzes copy number variations (CNVs) in spatial transcriptomics data, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like analyze_cell_communication or find_spatial_genes by focusing on CNVs.

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 lists required parameters and mentions that 'numbat' requires allele data, giving some context for method selection. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other spatial analysis tools, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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