diversity_tree

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the algorithm (IBS, UPGMA), output format (Newick), and subsampling behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (file creation) or authentication requirements.

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 with two short paragraphs. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool's complexity and presence of output schema, the description covers output format and handling of large datasets. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., needing a variant set) but is otherwise complete for a file-output tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds algorithmic context (IBS, UPGMA) that helps understand parameter roles, but does not provide new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 builds a UPGMA dendrogram from IBS distances, a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like diversity_pca and diversity_structure by focusing on tree construction.

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 for phylogenetic analysis but does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when to use this over other diversity_* tools. It mentions marker subsampling for large sets, which is indirect guidance.

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