map_assembly

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'map coordinates' implies a read-only transformation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, what the output format looks like, or any error conditions. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of genomic coordinate mapping, 4 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how coordinates are transformed, or any limitations (e.g., assembly compatibility). For a specialized bioinformatics tool, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format conventions for 'region' or typical values for 'asm_one'/'asm_two'). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: mapping coordinates between genome assemblies. It specifies the verb 'map' and the resource 'coordinates', making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on homology, ontology, variants, etc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar-sounding siblings like map_cdna_to_region or map_translation_to_region, which map different types of genomic features.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or how it differs from sibling tools that also perform mapping operations (e.g., map_cdna_to_region). Without this context, an agent might struggle to choose between this and other mapping-related tools.

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