smiles_retrieve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states retrieval without disclosing potential errors, authentication needs, rate limits, or the behavior for invalid inputs. For a simple read operation, this is insufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 10 words with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 is simple with one required parameter. The description explains the transformation but lacks specificity about acceptable identifier formats (e.g., common names, InChI). An output schema exists but is not shown, so the description could be more complete regarding return value details.

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%, and the schema only provides a type reference. The description adds essential meaning by specifying that the chemical_identifier should be a non-SMILES identifier, significantly enhancing understanding beyond the schema.

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 action ('Retrieves'), the resource ('SMILES string'), and the input condition ('from any non-SMILES chemical identifier'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like smiles_info which operate on SMILES strings.

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 implies usage when you have a non-SMILES identifier and need its SMILES representation. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or offer alternatives, though sibling tool names provide implicit differentiation.

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