analyze_cnv

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description does not contradict these, but it also adds no behavioral context beyond 'analyze', such as what data may be modified or whether results are persisted. Thus a baseline score with annotations is appropriate.

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, stating the purpose in the first sentence and then summarizing key arguments. It contains no superfluous filler, though the Args block is slightly redundant with the schema's property names.

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 complexity of the nested params object and the destructive annotation, the description is sparse but not entirely inadequate: the schema and annotations fill in many details, and an output schema exists. Still, it lacks high-level context about prerequisites, method implications, and side effects, so it is only minimally complete.

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 highlights that params must include reference_key and reference_categories and mentions optional method/thresholds, which is helpful because the top-level schema provides no descriptions for data_id and params. However, it remains vague about specific thresholds and does not fully compensate for the low schema coverage; the nested schema carries most parameter detail.

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, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_velocity_data or analyze_trajectory_data, which target different biological analyses.

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 usage by naming 'spatial transcriptomics data' and specifying CNV analysis, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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