ensembl_mapping

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure). For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in a single sentence. It avoids unnecessary details and wastes no words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating coordinate system mapping from assembly mapping for clarity.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address output format, error cases, or usage context relative to siblings. For a mapping tool with multiple parameter dependencies, more guidance on behavior and results is needed to be fully helpful.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain interactions between parameters like how feature_id relates to mapping_type). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra insights.

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's purpose: mapping coordinates between different coordinate systems and genome assemblies. It specifies the scope with 'genomic ↔ cDNA/CDS/protein' and mentions coverage of '/map/* endpoints.' However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from its siblings (e.g., ensembl_sequence or ensembl_variation), which might also involve coordinate handling.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions coverage of '/map/* endpoints' but doesn't explain when mapping is needed compared to other Ensembl tools like ensembl_lookup or ensembl_sequence. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or references to sibling tools for context.

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