thermocycler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that temperatures are in Celsius and which parameters are needed for specific actions. Missing details include valid temperature ranges, behavior on invalid input, and whether actions are idempotent or have side effects.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose. Every word contributes: the tool purpose, action list, parameter dependencies, and unit. No redundancy or fluff.

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 simple control tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential actions and parameters. However, it does not explain default behavior when optional parameters are omitted, nor does it cover error cases or sequencing. It is minimally complete but not thorough.

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 explains the meaning of block_temp and lid_temp (temperatures for block and lid) and their coupling to specific actions. The action parameter's enumeration is documented inline. However, it lacks valid ranges or behavior when parameters are null.

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 tool controls a thermocycler and enumerates the possible actions. The verb 'control' plus resource 'thermocycler' makes purpose evident. Although no sibling does the same, the description distinguishes the tool from liquid handling siblings by listing specific thermocycler actions.

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 by listing actions and their needed parameters (e.g., 'set_block (needs block_temp)'). However, it does not explicitly state when to use which action or when not to use them. No alternatives are mentioned, but no sibling overlaps with this functionality.

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