design_cloning_primers

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility. It discloses that the tool detects restriction sites, suggests leaders, and returns a JSON string with primer pairs. This provides adequate transparency for a stateless design tool, though it could mention assumptions like primer length.

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 efficiently structured with a brief intro, labeled Args, and Returns. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and the purpose is front-loaded for quick scanning.

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?

The description covers the main functionality and return format, but lacks notes on edge cases (e.g., short sequences, impossible Tm targets) or performance. Given the output schema exists, the description is mostly complete but could be slightly more thorough.

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 0%, but the description's Args section explains each parameter in plain language (sequence as target DNA, overhangs as optional, target_tm with default). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions, adding significant meaning.

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 it designs primers for cloning entire sequences with optional overhangs, detecting restriction sites and suggesting leaders. This purpose is distinct from sibling tools like design_qpcr_primers or check_primer_specificity, ensuring unambiguous selection.

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 usage for cloning primer design but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., qPCR or specificity checks). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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