batch_atted_coexpression

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

With no annotations, the description fails to reveal essential behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or output characteristics. The information given (batch version, 50 loci limit) is insufficient for an agent to understand implications.

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 focused sentence with no extraneous words. However, it could be structured to include more useful details without being verbose.

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 presence of many sibling batch tools and the lack of annotations or output schema details, the description is incomplete. It should explain how results are aggregated or how this differs from similar batch tools.

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 description reinforces the loci maxItems constraint from the schema but adds no new meaning for 'organism' or 'top_n' parameters. Schema coverage is low (33%), yet the description does not compensate adequately.

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 it as a batch version of atted_coexpression and specifies the batch limit of 50 loci, effectively distinguishing it from the sibling single-locus version.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_bar_aiv_interactions or when to prefer the single-locus version. Only a technical constraint (50 loci) is mentioned.

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