list_export_formats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that results are queried live from the server's export-handler registry, not hardcoded, and warns about silent dropping of variants or ploidy handling. This is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded purpose, then behavior, then usage guidance. The format-name examples are not fluff; they substantiate the compatibility warning. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how it fetches data, what compatibility details it returns, and why it matters for the related export operation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not applicable. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail while remaining consistent with the empty input 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the export formats this Gigwa build supports') and explicitly notes per-format compatibility info. It clearly distinguishes itself from export_genotypes by being a pre-export lookup rather than an export operation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'check this before picking a format for export_genotypes'. It also explains the practical consequence of choosing incompatible formats, making the use case and timing unambiguous. No alternative list tool exists among siblings, so no exclusion is needed.

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