fab

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

Without annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior but only states it creates a peptide chain. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, state changes, or what happens to existing structures, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single sentence, no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it may be too brief, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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 simple nature (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate for a minimal case but lacks details on return values, integration with existing structures, or behavior when used repeatedly. It does not leverage the output schema to explain results.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters beyond their names. It only mentions 'sequence' implicitly, and 'options' remains completely undefined, adding no value over the schema defaults.

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 that it creates a peptide chain from a sequence, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from siblings like 'create' which is more generic, but does not elaborate on context or purpose beyond that.

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 like 'create' or 'fragment'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or other contextual cues to help the agent decide between siblings.

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