athena_bionano_catalog

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses substantial behavioral detail: V2 additive fields, 20 source-backed adapters, 20 primary sources, 15 conditioned quantitative claims, bounded expansions, operator phylogeny, and optional evidence packets. It also notes that user seed numbers remain distinct from verified empirical constants, which is a semantic nuance not obvious from the schema.

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 two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and all details serve a purpose. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the catalog contents, which is the core of the tool. However, it omits parameter meanings, usage context, and doesn't fully specify return format or pagination. Given the lack of an output schema and no parameter explanations, the description is only partially complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It never mentions include_atlas and only alludes to 'optional evidence packets' for include_evidence. It fails to clarify what the toggles do or their effect on the returned catalog, leaving the agent without enough information to decide whether to set them.

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 opens with 'Return the stable 12-archetype/14-seed BNMK catalog,' clearly specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from bionano siblings (assembly, compile, transfer) by focusing on the static catalog rather than operations.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance is provided. It does not mention alternatives or usage context. The only implication is that it is a retrieval tool, but there is no comparison to sibling bionano tools, leaving the agent without clear selection guidance.

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