list_sequences

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and the description scopes it to a variant set, but it does not disclose additional traits such as permissions, error behavior, or output format. This is acceptable for a simple listing tool but leaves some implicit behavior unstated.

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 well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides actionable usage context. The parameter warning is detailed but directly useful, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

This is a single-parameter tool with an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. It fully explains what the tool returns conceptually, how to use the result, and how to obtain the required parameter, making it sufficient for correct invocation.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, and the parameter description adds significant meaning beyond the type declaration. It explains the BrAPI variantSetDbId format, tells the agent to copy the exact string from list_variant_sets or list_content, warns against assembling it manually, and even describes the failure mode of an incorrect value.

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 and resource: lists reference sequences (chromosomes/contigs) available in a variant set. The description further clarifies the purpose by explaining that it provides valid reference_name values for region filters, distinguishing it from related list/metadata tools.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool: to discover valid reference_name values for count_variants, search_variants, and QC & diversity tools. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the prerequisite relationship is clear enough to guide selection.

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