kegg_pathway_genes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the operation is a read-like list operation returning genes, which is the core behavior. It does not disclose potential limitations, such as whether the gene list contains symbols, Entrez IDs, or both, though the presence of an output schema mitigates this. There is 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 repeats the same core statement in English and Chinese: 'List genes in a KEGG pathway', 'returns the genes in the pathway', and '返回该通路下的基因' all say essentially the same thing. The example and purpose are valuable, but the redundancy bloats an otherwise simple definition.

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?

For a low-complexity tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It names the resource type, gives an example pathway ID, and states the purpose. It could be improved with explicit guidance about pathway ID construction, but an agent can likely invoke the tool correctly with the information provided.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented pathway_id parameter. It does so by providing the example 'hsa05224=Breast cancer', which conveys both the format (organism-prefixed KEGG ID) and an example value. It could go further by explicitly stating the required format, but the example is enough for a single obvious parameter.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List genes in a KEGG pathway.' It clearly states the output as the gene list for that pathway and even gives an example pathway ID (hsa05224=Breast cancer), making the purpose unambiguous. This also distinguishes it from the sibling kegg_pathway_search, which searches for pathways rather than retrieving genes.

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 when to use the tool—when you need the genes belonging to a KEGG pathway, e.g., to understand the molecular composition of the pathway. However, it never explicitly addresses alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as preferring kegg_pathway_search when the goal is finding pathways.

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