analyze_spatial_statistics

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context, such as whether analysis results are written back to the dataset or if certain analyses require cluster_key and may fail otherwise. It doesn't explain side effects, performance implications, or what changes the tool makes beyond the generic verb 'analyze'.

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 and front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a compact Args list. No unnecessary words, but it could have been slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

This is a highly complex tool with 13 analysis types, a nested params schema, and an output schema, yet the description offers no overview of the analysis categories, prerequisites (e.g., cluster_key for group-based analyses), or typical use cases. It relies entirely on the schema for details, which is insufficient for an agent to select and invoke it confidently.

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 Args section gives brief meanings for data_id and params, mentioning analysis_type, cluster_key, and genes. However, with schema description coverage at 0% for top-level parameters, the description only partially compensates by naming a few fields and pointing to the full schema. It doesn't explain the distinction between gene-based and group-based analyses or the many other parameters.

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 'spatial statistics and autocorrelation patterns', giving a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_spatial_genes or identify_spatial_domains, which could also involve spatial statistics.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or suggest other tools for different scenarios. The only pointer is to 'See SpatialStatisticsParameters for all types', which is parameter documentation, not usage direction.

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