find_spatial_genes

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (modifies data) and idempotentHint=true (safe to repeat), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action 'identify.' It does not explain that results are stored in the data object, mention potential side effects, or clarify safety. The description fails to leverage annotations for additional transparency.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, but it is overly terse for a tool with a complex nested parameters object. It could include a brief overview of the method options without being verbose, making it minimally adequate.

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, output schema exists, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It does not mention that results are added to the dataset, explain the choice of methods, or provide usage context. The output schema exists but the description does not refer to it.

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 merely lists the two parameters ('data_id' and 'params') with minimal explanations ('Dataset ID,' 'Spatial variable gene parameters (method, n_top_genes, etc.)'). While the input schema provides rich descriptions for nested properties, the tool's description adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already offers. With 0% schema coverage by the description, it should compensate but does not.

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 states 'Identify spatially variable genes,' providing a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from sibling tools (e.g., analyze_spatial_statistics, identify_spatial_domains) by focusing on variable gene identification. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools, making it slightly less than a 5.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when specific methods (flashs, sparkx, spatialde) should be chosen or when not to use it. No context for usage is provided.

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