qc_duplicate_accessions

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: pairwise IBS computation, default subsampling, output file generation (duplicate_pairs.csv, duplicate_groups.csv), and the performance-oriented method option. It lacks details on data modification or resource usage, but is otherwise transparent.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. It efficiently covers purpose, algorithm, defaults, and performance tips 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?

Given the 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and existing output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains output files and method options, though it could mention edge cases like empty results. Still, it is well-rounded.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default max_markers behavior and when to use allelematrix, which goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 'Detect duplicate / clonal accessions via pairwise identity-by-state (IBS)', specifying the verb, resource, and method. It distinguishes from sibling QC tools like qc_call_rate by focusing on duplicate detection, and uses precise language ('core genebank cleaning check').

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 explains when to use the tool (for mislabelled duplicates/clones) and provides guidance for large datasets (use method='allelematrix'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings.

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