qc_heterozygosity

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool writes a CSV file and flags samples based on a standard deviation threshold. It also notes performance considerations for large datasets, which is a valuable behavioral trait. It does not mention authentication or any destructive actions, but the core behavior is well covered.

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: first sentence states the purpose, then provides interpretation of results, and ends with a practical usage tip. Every sentence adds value 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?

The tool has 6 parameters and an output schema. The description explains the main output, the threshold logic, and gives a performance recommendation. It does not mention that the analysis is cohort-based or requires a variant set ID, but the schema covers the required parameter. Overall, it provides sufficient context 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of outlier_sd in context and recommending method='allelematrix' with max_markers for large sets, which goes beyond the schema's simple 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 it performs per-sample observed heterozygosity QC and flags outliers. It distinguishes itself from sibling QC tools by focusing on heterozygosity, and provides interpretation of high and low values, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives context by explaining what high and low heterozygosity indicate, helping decide when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly compare to other QC tools or state when not to use it, though the performance tip for large datasets provides additional guidance.

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