identify_spatial_domains

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

Given the annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-idempotency, the description should disclose side effects like dataset modification or resource usage. It mentions no behavioural traits beyond the basic operation, leaving the agent uninformed about outcomes or side effects.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose statement. It includes an 'Args' section that briefly describes parameters. There is no redundant information, though it could arguably be slightly more structured.

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 complexity of the tool (many subparameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description should explain what the output represents or how to interpret results. It lacks that context, and with many sibling tools, more guidance is needed for completeness.

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 adds minimal meaning for the top-level parameters ('data_id: Dataset ID', 'params: ...method, n_domains, resolution, etc.'). Although the nested schema already has detailed descriptions for subparameters, the top-level schema coverage is 0%, and the description compensates slightly. However, it does not fully explain all param fields, earning a 3.

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 is a clear verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_spatial_statistics' by specifically targeting domain identification. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or differentiate from potentially overlapping tools, so a 4 is appropriate.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The description only lists parameters, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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