identify_significant_snps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation on the input file and a write operation to output_path, but does not explicitly state that the original file is untouched or that it is a non-destructive filter. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about side effects.

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 sentence of 12 words, fully front-loaded with the action and criterion. It is concise without any redundant information.

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 simplicity of the tool (filtering by threshold) and full schema coverage, the description covers the main action. However, it does not mention the output format or that results are saved to output_path (covered in schema but not in description). No output schema exists, so a brief note on return values 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail beyond what is already in the input schema. It does not explain the use of suggest_threshold or the relationship between thresholds.

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 verb 'Filter' and resource 'GWAS results to identify genome-wide significant SNPs' with a specific criterion 'based on p-value threshold'. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like clump_snps, which also filter SNPs but by different criteria.

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. For instance, it does not mention that it is for simple p-value thresholding, while clump_snps might be used for LD-based pruning. The agent is left to infer from context.

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