kegg_pathway_enrichment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the purpose, inputs, and outputs, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., external API calls, computational cost, rate limits, or behavior under edge cases like empty gene lists). The behavioral transparency is adequate but not deep.

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 sections for Args, Returns, and Examples, making it easy to scan. However, it is longer than necessary due to mixed Chinese/English, and the first line repeats the tool's purpose. It could be more concise without losing information.

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 description covers all parameters and the structure of the return value, which is sufficient given that an output schema exists (mentioned in context). It lacks some details like valid organism codes and edge-case handling, but overall it provides a complete picture for an enrichment analysis tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining each parameter's role and default values. It clarifies that gene_list expects strings like 'TP53', organism defaults to 'hsa', and pvalue_threshold/min_gene_count have defaults. However, it does not provide valid ranges or examples for all parameters (e.g., organism codes), leaving some ambiguity.

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 performs KEGG pathway enrichment analysis on a gene list, specifying the resource (KEGG pathways) and the action (enrichment analysis). The title 'MVP版本' and examples distinguish it from sibling tools like advanced_query or smart_search.

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 provides usage examples for different scenarios (cancer genes, mouse genes, stricter threshold), implying typical use cases. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or guidance for when not to use it.

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