design_multi_gene_panel

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses the algorithmic approach (greedy, heterodimer minimization) but lacks details on side effects, authentication, or limitations (e.g., what happens if no non-conflicting set exists). No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus parameter descriptions. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides algorithmic insight, and the parameter section is clear. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity of multi-gene primer design, the description covers key aspects (input, method, output reference) but could elaborate on the 'non-conflicting' criteria or failure cases. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details, keeping the description fairly complete.

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 adds meaning by specifying that the 'genes' list requires 'name' and 'sequence' keys, and explains target_tm as melting temperature with default 60°C. This compensates for the bare schema, though additional parameter constraints could be detailed.

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 designs primer pairs for multiple genes, specifying a greedy approach to minimize heterodimers. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like design_cloning_primers or design_qpcr_primers, which target specific applications. The mention of 'non-conflicting panel' further clarifies the goal.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like analyze_multiplex_compatibility or check_primer_specificity. Usage context is implied (when designing a multi-gene panel) but no direct comparison or exclusions are provided.

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