reactome_participants

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the scope ('reaction or pathway') and the types of participants but does not mention return format, hierarchy traversal, or error behavior. For a straightforward read operation, the transparency is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical list efficiently adds detail about participant types without redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately conveys what is returned and the scope of the query. However, it could mention whether the result is limited to direct participants or includes nested elements, but this is not essential for a basic retrieval.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema documents. Baseline 3 applies due to full schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('molecular participants') and clearly enumerates the participant roles (inputs, outputs, catalysts, regulators). It explicitly scopes to reactions or pathways, distinguishing it from sibling tools like reactome_participating_physical_entities.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description simply states what it returns, with no mention of when to choose it over siblings such as reactome_participating_physical_entities or reactome_get_pathway. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided.

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