find_spatial_genes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true, but the description adds no behavioral detail such as side effects (e.g., modifying the dataset, storing results), runtime implications, or auth requirements. It merely states the action without any disclosure 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 extremely concise with no wasted words, and the Args section provides a clear structure. However, it is almost too terse, borderline under-specified. It earns a high score for lack of fluff but loses a point for being overly minimalist.

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 having an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 18 parameters and destructive behavior. It does not mention expected outputs, potential runtime (e.g., SpatialDE slow), or side effects. Given the complexity, the description is far from sufficient for an agent to fully understand when and how to use it effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% because the description only mentions 'params' generically with examples like 'method, n_top_genes, etc.' It does not clarify parameter formats, defaults, or relationships. The schema itself has rich descriptions, but the description fails to add high-level guidance or summary beyond listing a couple of examples.

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 'Identify' and the resource 'spatially variable genes', which is specific and distinguishable from siblings like find_markers and analyze_spatial_statistics. It concisely captures the tool's primary function.

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 conditions like needing spatial transcriptomics data, nor does it differentiate from related analysis tools. The description lacks any contextual hints for selection.

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