fcs_taxonomy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds useful interpretive context, notably that ordering is by functions rather than substances and that one species may occupy two distant positions. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, how filter parameters affect results, or what a default (unfiltered) call returns.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core content. The second sentence adds a conceptually important clarification about ordering and multi-membership. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a query tool with three optional filters and no output schema, the description conveys the conceptual payload but omits practical details: how filters combine, what an unfiltered response looks like, whether pairId is required for single-pair retrieval, and the expected output format. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 each parameter (role, pairId, stratum) is already documented in the schema. The description mentions causal role and Pareto stratum, which map to two of the three filters, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 identifies the resource: a taxonomy of thirteen molecular classes expressed as seventeen species–function pairs, with the relevant attributes enumerated. It does not use an explicit action verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the subject matter and content are unambiguous.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fcs_stratify, fcs_levels, fcs_compare, or fcs_report. The description implies a read/query operation but does not state conditions, exclusions, or preferred usage contexts.

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