analyze_dna

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the HTTP method per action (GET vs POST), marks parse as the only write ('Writes: parse only'), and explains the raw flag's effect on output. It also notes how matches are persisted as DNA associations. It stops short of auth/error/pagination details, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then organized into Actions, Args, and Returns. It is compact yet information-dense, with no redundant sentences or filler, and the formatting makes the multi-action behavior easy to scan.

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 absence of an output schema, the description explains the return dict and the per-action content (matches, clade, parsed segments), and covers all invocation details. It lacks error handling and detailed result shapes, but for a three-action analysis tool the essential context is present.

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 coverage is 0% and there are no enums in the schema, so the description must carry the full parameter burden. The Args section defines all five parameters, maps action values, states which parameters are required per action, and gives the default for instance. This fully compensates for the bare input schema.

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 opens with a concrete purpose, 'DNA match analysis and raw match-string parsing', then enumerates three distinct actions (matches, ydna, parse) with endpoints and output content. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes the tool from the manage_* siblings, which focus on entity CRUD rather than DNA-specific analysis.

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 action list gives explicit context for each mode and required parameters, and it points to manage_person/manage_note for how DNA associations and notes are stored, and to get_instances for the instance parameter. It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use rule, but the references to sibling tools provide enough routing guidance.

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