plant_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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Input: none' and describes the output as 'common plant species names mapped to Ensembl species IDs', making the operation's scope and result format clear. While it does not discuss potential errors or data freshness, for a parameterless list tool this is substantial transparency.

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 English description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. However, the Chinese sentence largely duplicates the output description ('列出支持的植物物种及其对应 Ensembl 物种名'), introducing minor redundancy. It remains appropriately sized and scannable.

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 simple tool with no parameters and a dedicated output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, input, and output format. It could be slightly more explicit about how the species list integrates with plant_gene_lookup, but the provided context is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema properties are empty, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by stating 'Input: none', which removes any ambiguity about whether arguments are expected. No further parameter explanation is needed.

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 opening phrase 'List supported plant species for BioMCP plant gene lookup' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (supported plant species), and clearly states the tool's role within the BioMCP plant gene workflow. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like plant_gene_lookup by focusing on the enumeration of supported species rather than gene queries.

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 context ('for BioMCP plant gene lookup') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusion conditions. An agent must infer that this list should be consulted before querying plant_gene_lookup, which is a plausible but not explicitly stated workflow.

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