athena_bionano_transfer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose that the tool does not grant execution authority or causal equivalence, which is a useful negative behavioral trait. However, it does not mention side effects, required permissions, or what the output looks like, leaving significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first defines the action, the second clarifies a limitation. No wasted words.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, yet the description only provides a high-level purpose and a caution. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how to choose parameters, or when to invoke it, making it insufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (target, machine_id, constraints) or their meanings. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions, so the agent gets no help understanding what to pass.

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 verb 'Map' and the resource: a 'source-backed biological mechanism' into a 'target ATHENA problem' as 'COMPUTATIONAL_ANALOGY'. This distinguishes it from sibling bionano tools by highlighting the analogy output, though it doesn't name specific siblings.

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 usage for creating a computational analogy from a biological mechanism, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. The caveat 'never grants execution authority or causal equivalence' provides a usage caution but not a clear decision rule.

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