ensembl_meta

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what information can be retrieved (metadata, releases, species info, status) and the endpoints covered, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, response formats, or error conditions. The description is informative but lacks operational details.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose comprehensively, and the second sentence provides important implementation context about the endpoints covered. 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?

For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and endpoint context but lacks information about return values, error handling, and operational constraints. Given the complexity of the tool (multiple parameter combinations), more behavioral context would be 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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 with specific verbs ('Get server metadata, data releases, species info, and system status') and resources ('/info/* endpoints and /archive/id'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on compara, features, lookup, mapping, etc. It explicitly covers what information can be retrieved.

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 clear context by mentioning the specific API endpoints covered ('/info/* endpoints and /archive/id'), which helps understand when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the distinction is implied by the different tool names.

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