analyze_spatial_statistics

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

The description only says 'Analyze', which is vague. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no details about side effects, data requirements, or what the output contains. With an output schema present, this gap is partially mitigated but still insufficient.

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 includes an Args section, making it easy to scan. It wastes no words, though the structure could be improved by front-loading key behavioral notes.

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 with many nested parameters, the description is minimal. It does not explain typical workflows, output expectations, or common scenarios. An output schema exists but the description remains incomplete.

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 adds meaning for data_id ('Dataset ID') and hints at params content, but the schema has detailed descriptions for inner parameters. Although top-level schema coverage is 0%, the description provides a summary that aids understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 spatial statistics and autocorrelation patterns, distinguishing it from siblings like cell communication or enrichment analyses. However, it could be more specific about the types of analyses (e.g., Moran's I) to further clarify purpose.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_spatial_genes or identify_spatial_domains. No prerequisites or context are provided.

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