build_phylogenetic_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It describes inputs and outputs but does not mention side effects, destructive actions, rate limits, or any limitations (e.g., number of genes allowed). The tool is implied to be read-only, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 well-structured with a title, arguments, returns, and an example. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information. However, the mix of Chinese and English may slightly reduce clarity for English-only agents, but the content is concise.

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 has an output schema, the description adequately summarizes return value as '系统发育图谱数据'. It provides parameter hints and an example, but lacks details on input constraints (e.g., valid species names) or error scenarios. It covers the basics but leaves some contextual gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter in the docstring. 'gene_symbols' is described as a list of gene symbols, 'species_set' includes a default set of common model organisms, and 'include_domain_info' is a boolean for domain information. The example provides concrete usage context.

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's purpose as '系统发育图谱构建工具' (phylogenetic profile construction tool) and provides a detailed docstring with arguments, returns, and an example. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'analyze_gene_evolution' by focusing specifically on building phylogenetic profiles from gene symbols and species sets.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned. The example only shows a typical use case but does not explain when to choose this over 'analyze_gene_evolution' or 'kegg_pathway_enrichment'.

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