annotate_cell_types

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

The description notes that reference methods require preprocessing, adding some behavioral context. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, data modifications, or other traits beyond what annotations already indicate (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false).

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, consisting of two sentences and a note. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it could be more structured with clear sections, but it is not excessively 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?

Despite the tool's complexity (many parameters, multiple methods, and an output schema), the description is sparse. It does not explain the return value, guide method selection beyond one note, or provide a complete picture of tool usage.

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 has extensive descriptions for many parameters, so the description adds minimal new information. The description only gives a brief example list of parameters without adding meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb 'annotate' and resource 'cell types in spatial transcriptomics data', which is distinct from sibling tools that perform other analyses. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a specific usage note about reference methods requiring preprocessing, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or 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.