athena_bionano_compile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavior: 'Unknown IDs HOLD rather than fabricating a classification.' This adds useful safety context. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, permissions, or what 'compile' does to system state, which is a gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 efficient: two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and a behavioral guarantee second. It avoids fluff, though the first sentence is a dense run-on with heavily hyphenated jargon that could be clearer.

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 tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description should explain what the tool returns or what 'compile' produces. It describes the contract contents but never states the return value, side effects, or failure modes. The 'HOLD' behavior is mentioned, but it's unclear what that means in practice.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly ties the parameter to the BNMK machine identity ('Compile one known BNMK machine') and hints at unknown ID handling. Yet it never names 'machine_id' or describes its format, leaving the agent to infer.

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 action ('Compile one known BNMK machine') and the output artifact ('source-backed 4D/12D/KC144 contract'), distinguishing it from sibling compile tools by resource. However, heavy jargon like 'BNMK', '4D/12D/KC144' and 'state cycle and row associations' makes it less accessible to a general agent.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or sister tools. The only behavioral note about unknown IDs is not a usage guideline.

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