gramene_homologs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the data source version, return fields (target_locus, homology type, gene_tree_id), and importantly notes what is NOT included (per-row taxon, identity, protein ID). This informs the agent of limitations.

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: one sentence for purpose, one for parameter behavior, one for return structure, and one for complementary tools. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential info.

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's complexity and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description summarizes returns and limitations well. However, it does not mention that this tool is for single locus queries and that for multiple loci the batch version should be used. That would improve 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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the default for homology_type and explaining each enum value's effect ('paralog' for in-species, 'all' for everything).

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 fetches orthologs and paralogs from Gramene v69. It specifies the resource and the type of homology data, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batch_gramene_homologs or consensus_homologs.

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 explains default homology_type and alternatives, and suggests pairing with other tools for enrichment. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. sibling homology tools or when to use the batch version.

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