ucsc_genome_info

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 conveys a read-only query/inspect operation, but it does not state what happens when assembly is empty versus set, whether list_tracks changes the response, or any external API characteristics, limits, or side effects.

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 short and front-loaded, but it repeats the same content in English and Chinese, including the list/inspect functionality and the 'for genomics research' purpose. Later sentences do not add enough new information to justify the duplication.

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 no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the definition leaves important mode-selection and parameter semantics implicit. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the agent still lacks guidance on when to set list_tracks, how assembly selection behaves, and how this tool compares to related assembly/genome tools.

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. It gives an example assembly value (hg38/GRCh38) and mentions gene annotation tracks, but it never explains the list_tracks boolean parameter or the default behavior when assembly is omitted.

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 names UCSC Genome Browser as the resource and clearly states two modes: listing available genome assemblies or inspecting one assembly and its gene annotation tracks. This is specific enough to distinguish the tool from generic genome/assembly siblings like genome_assembly_search or ensembl_gene_lookup.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'for genomics research' is too generic and does not help an agent choose between this and the many other genomics-related sibling tools. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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