reactome_analyze_identifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states that it returns pathways, omitting important behavioral traits such as default projection to Homo sapiens, the effect of the 'interactors' flag, how species filtering works, error behavior for invalid identifiers, or whether the operation is read-only. This is a meaningful gap given that the tool likely has more nuanced behavior.

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 two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no fluff or repetition. Every phrase adds information: 'single' scopes the input, 'pathway enrichment' states the analysis type, and the second sentence clarifies the return. This is an example of efficient, well-structured description writing.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose and return but lacks details about defaults, usage context (singular vs plural), and any caveats. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer important context from sibling tool names and the schema. The absence of output schema means the description should describe return structure more clearly (e.g., list of pathways or analysis result IDs), which it does only vaguely ('pathways containing this identifier').

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond mapping 'single gene/protein identifier' to the 'id' field. It does not clarify the semantics of 'species', 'projection', or 'interactors' beyond the schema descriptions, which are adequate. Thus the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Analyze') and resource ('single gene/protein identifier') with a clear outcome ('pathway enrichment' and 'Returns pathways containing this identifier'). It explicitly says 'single', which distinguishes it from sibling reactome_analyze_identifiers (plural). This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 for a single identifier, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reactome_analyze_identifiers or reactome_pathways_for_entity. It provides no exclusion scenarios or context about when projection/interactors settings are useful. The guidance is present only through the word 'single', which is not explicit enough for a tool with many siblings.

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