gene_getter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('fetches'), provides real-time/current data, and specifies the data source (MyGene.info). It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but covers the core functionality well for a query tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (prerequisite, what it provides, data currency, examples, alternatives). While slightly longer than minimal, every sentence adds value. The warning icon and bullet points enhance readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 single-parameter query tool with an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context, and distinguishes from siblings. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values.

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 fully documents the single parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (both mention gene symbols and IDs). 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: 'Get detailed gene information from MyGene.info' with specific examples of what information is provided (gene name, symbol, summary, aliases, type, links). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like variant_searcher and article_searcher by focusing on gene annotations rather than variants or articles.

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 explicit guidance: it includes a prerequisite ('Use the 'think' tool FIRST'), gives positive examples of when to use it (e.g., 'Get information about TP53'), and explicitly names alternatives for related tasks ('For genetic variants, use variant_searcher. For articles about genes, use article_searcher').

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