get_sequence

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states what the tool does but lacks behavioral details such as output format (e.g., FASTA, plain text), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the DNA/RNA/protein sequence'). There is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., sequence format, metadata), potential side effects, or usage constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and biological data retrieval, more context is needed to ensure proper agent 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters (id and type with enum). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'region or feature' which loosely relates to 'id', but doesn't clarify parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('DNA/RNA/protein sequence'), specifying it's for a 'given region or feature'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_homology or get_variants_for_region by focusing on sequence retrieval rather than homology, variants, or other genomic data.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. While the description implies it's for sequence retrieval, it doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., for gene annotation vs. protein analysis) or mention related tools like map_cdna_to_region that might overlap in functionality, leaving usage context unclear.

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