analyze_trajectory_data

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), so it modifies data. The description does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether it writes results back to the dataset, or computational cost). With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 very short (one sentence plus an Args list), but the Args list is redundant with the schema and adds no new information. It is not wasteful, but it is too minimal to be considered well-structured. A more informative sentence about output or usage would improve it.

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 (nested parameters, multiple methods) and that an output schema exists but is not described, the description should explain what the tool returns or modifies. It only states the high-level purpose. The schema covers parameter details, but the description lacks behavioral and output context, making it adequate but 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 input schema provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including defaults, constraints, and method-specific behavior. The description merely lists parameter names without adding meaning. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3; the description adds no extra value.

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's purpose: 'Infer cellular trajectories and pseudotime ordering.' This uses a specific verb ('Infer') and resource ('cellular trajectories and pseudotime ordering'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_velocity_data' that deal with velocity, not trajectory inference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., preprocessed data, velocity data for certain methods) or indicate when not to use it. The schema contains method-specific details, but the description fails to help the agent choose between this and sibling tools like 'analyze_velocity_data'.

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