dispense

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

With no annotations, the description must provide behavioral details. It only states the basic action; it omits critical info such as whether tips are needed, behavior for invalid wells or volumes, error handling, and side effects (e.g., if the deck state changes).

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 a single concise sentence with backtick parameter references. No unnecessary words or repetition; it is optimally succinct.

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 the complexity of lab automation (e.g., tip requirements, plate compatibility), the description lacks essential context. No explanation of return values, required labware state, or sequencing with sibling tools like 'pick_up_tips'.

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 explain parameter semantics. It names the parameters but does not specify format for 'wells' (e.g., list, range) or constraints for 'volume' (e.g., min/max, units beyond microliters). This is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 (dispense) and the target resource (each plate well), with specific parameter references (volume, wells). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like aspirate (withdraw) and transfer (move liquid between locations).

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. While the name and description imply use for adding liquid to wells, there is no mention of prerequisites, excluded scenarios, or comparisons to siblings like aspirate or transfer.

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