analyze_multiplex_compatibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the analysis (read-only) and return format, but does not explicitly state it is safe or non-destructive, nor mention any permissions, rate limits, or 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 relatively short and includes a purpose statement followed by formatted Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary details, though the Args section essentially restates the schema property name.

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 one-parameter tool and presence of an output schema, the description covers return values (JSON string with risk interactions and score). However, it omits potential constraints or edge cases (e.g., minimum primer length, number of primers), leaving some gaps for an agent to fully understand the tool's capabilities.

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 explains the single parameter 'primers' as 'a list of primer sequences to analyze', adding marginal meaning beyond the schema's type definition. With 0% schema coverage, the description provides some context but lacks details like allowed sequence formats, length constraints, or degenerate bases.

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 analyzes a set of primers for potential cross-reactivity (heterodimers), which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from siblings like check_primer_specificity by focusing on primer-primer interactions rather than genome specificity.

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 indicates usefulness for multiplex PCR or panel design, giving context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives (e.g., if you need genome-wide specificity, use check_primer_specificity).

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