identify_spatial_domains

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, meaning this is a write operation, but the description says 'identify', which could be interpreted as read-only. No mention of side effects, such as modifying the dataset with domain assignments, or any cautions about computational cost. The description carries the full burden and fails to disclose behavioral traits.

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, which is concise, but it sacrifices essential information. Every sentence should earn its place; here, the three lines are too sparse to be useful. A minimum viable description would include at least one sentence about what the tool does.

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 (many parameters, multiple methods) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or modifies. It does not mention the output or any post-conditions, leaving the agent without a complete picture.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only lists 'data_id' and 'params' without describing their purpose or structure. The schema has extensive descriptions, but the description adds no value beyond the names.

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 spatial domains and tissue architecture', which clearly indicates the tool's purpose. The name reinforces this. However, it could be more specific about what spatial domains are in this context, distinguishing it from siblings like 'find_spatial_genes' or 'analyze_spatial_statistics'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites, data requirements, or recommended scenarios. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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