get_sequence

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the basic return value by explaining that it reports sequence-to-residue-number alignment and chain breaks, with reasoning about PDB numbering and unmodelled loops. This adds meaningful behavioral context. It does not discuss failure modes or side effects, but for a simple read-only retrieval, it is quite transparent.

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, consisting of three sentences. The first sentence is direct and operational. The second sentence adds key behavioral details, and the third provides explanatory context. While the third sentence could be shorter, it earns its place by clarifying the significance of the alignment and gaps. No redundancy or fluff.

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 an output schema exists and the parameter schema is rich, the description doesn't need to explain return types. It adequately covers purpose, prerequisites, and key behavioral nuances. However, it does not explicitly address edge cases like invalid chain names or multiple chains, though these may be handled by the output schema. Overall, it is complete for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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 100%, so both parameters (obj_name and chain) already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it only mentions 'loaded structure' and 'residue numbers' in general terms. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns the amino-acid sequence in FASTA format with a specific verb and resource ('Returns the amino-acid sequence of a loaded structure'). It also mentions additional reporting of sequence alignment and chain breaks, making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, though its function is unique among them.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need the sequence of a loaded structure) and mentions a prerequisite ('loaded structure'), but it does not explicitly state alternatives or contrast with other tools. The 'Both matter' paragraph explains why the alignment and gaps are important, which helps contextualize usage, but there is no direct guidance on when to choose this over a sibling.

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