get_morphology_features

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

No annotations are present, placing the full burden on the description. It only states what data is retrieved, without mentioning behavioral aspects like whether it is read-only, any side effects, rate limits, or pagination. The phrase 'for all cells' hints at scope but is insufficient for a transparent understanding.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It contains no redundant information and is well-structured for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of output schema and the presence of a pagination parameter (numRows), the description fails to explain return structure, pagination behavior, or any filtering capabilities. For a tool that queries a database, more detail (e.g., format of returned data, how pagination works) would be expected for completeness.

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?

The single parameter numRows is fully described in the input schema (coverage 100%), including its default. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 identifies the resource (morphology features) and the database (Allen Cell Types Database). It specifies that it retrieves 'neuron reconstruction metadata' for all cells, which gives a good sense of the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_ephys_features, so there is minor ambiguity.

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?

No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus its siblings. The description does not specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context without support.

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