reactome_diseases

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states a simple list retrieval, but does not mention any side effects, auth requirements, return format, or pagination. For a read-only list tool, a bit more context about the response (e.g., list of disease names/IDs) would be expected.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no padding or redundancy, which is appropriate for such a simple tool.

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 tool's low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't specify the return format (e.g., list of disease names, IDs, or annotations) or provide any usage context, which would be helpful since there is no output schema to clarify.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms this. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters to clarify; the description adds no additional parameter semantics because none exist.

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 'Get the list of diseases annotated in Reactome' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('list of diseases annotated in Reactome'), making the tool's primary function immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools that focus on pathways or other entity types.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, with no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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