calculate_genomic_inflation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'calculate' (implying a read-only computation) but does not describe file format requirements, missing data handling, error conditions, or whether any files are modified. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences long, both directly informative. There is no redundant or extraneous information. It front-loads the core purpose and follows with the context.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description should at least mention the return value (e.g., lambda GC value and possibly a plot or table). It does not explain the output format or any prerequisites like file formatting. Some gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the parameters adequately. The description adds the context of GWAS summary statistics and stratification but does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond the schema defaults. Baseline 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 calculates the genomic inflation factor (lambda GC) from GWAS summary statistics, with a specific purpose of assessing population stratification. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like calculate_heritability_ldsc or run_gwas.

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 context by indicating it is used for population stratification assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for lambda GC vs. LD score regression). No exclusions or when-not guidance is given.

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