batch_atted_coexpression

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only notes the batch nature and input limit. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or how it handles errors or edge cases (e.g., exceeding 50 loci, which is partially covered by schema maxItems). The description adds minimal behavioral insight beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 concise at two sentences, each serving a purpose: the first establishes the tool's relation to atted_coexpression, and the second states a key constraint. There is no superfluous text, but it could be slightly more detailed without becoming wordy. The structure is front-loaded and clear.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain what 'top_n' controls (number of coexpression results) or provide any context for selecting this batch tool over other batch tools in the sibling list. While the output schema may define return values, the description lacks sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this tool, especially compared to other 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 input schema covers 3 parameters, but only 'organism' has a description (coverage ~33%). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema: 'Up to 50 loci' restates the loci maxItems constraint. It does not explain the 'top_n' parameter or clarify the 'organism' parameter format beyond the schema's own description. Thus, the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 'Batch version of atted_coexpression' clearly indicates it performs the same coexpression analysis as the single-locus tool but for multiple inputs. It specifies a limit of 'Up to 50 loci per call,' which distinguishes it from the sibling atted_coexpression tool. However, it does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'calculate coexpression') or what coexpression analysis entails, slightly reducing clarity.

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 this tool should be used when querying multiple loci, while atted_coexpression is for single queries. However, no explicit guidance is given on when not to use it or how it compares to other batch tools like batch_bar_aiv_interactions. The context of sibling tools provides some differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit usage instructions.

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