get_species_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool 'Get[s] a list', implying a safe read operation, and 'all supported species' suggests no filtering or pagination. It does not discuss side effects, authentication, or response formatting, but for such a simple tool, this is adequate without contradicting anything.

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?

A single sentence that delivers the complete purpose with no redundant words. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 tool is extremely simple (zero parameters, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to explain return values. The one-line description fully covers the tool's purpose and scope. No further context is needed given the low complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (vacuously). The baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none exist, which 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 function: 'Get a list of all supported species in MyGene.info.' The verb 'Get' combined with the specific resource ('list of all supported species') leaves no ambiguity, and it is distinct from siblings like query_genes or get_available_fields, which serve different purposes.

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: call this tool when you need the complete list of supported species. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Minimal but acceptable for a zero-parameter utility.

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