find_markers

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description does not clarify behavioral traits such as whether the tool modifies data or any side effects beyond the annotations.

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 concise, with one sentence explaining purpose and a simple list of arguments. It is front-loaded with the key action, but could benefit from slightly more structure.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, the description lacks guidance on method selection, interpretation, or handling of edge cases, making it 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 lists parameter names and mentions some optional ones, but the input schema already provides rich descriptions for all nested parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 finds differentially expressed genes between groups, which directly corresponds to the tool name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_enrichment or compare_conditions.

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 indicates required parameters (group_key) and optional ones, but does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it provide context about prerequisites or when not to use it.

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