reactome_psicquic_summary

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Get a summary', which implies a read operation but does not mention return format, pagination, potential errors, limitations, or relationship to other interactor tools. The brevity leaves the agent to guess what a 'summary' contains and how it is delivered.

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 sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple 2-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite being a simple tool, it lacks an output schema and any description of what the summary contains or how it might differ from sibling tools like 'reactome_psicquic_details'. The description is minimal but leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's role and expected results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no semantic information beyond the schema: 'resource' and 'accession' are already described with examples. The phrase 'from a PSICQUIC resource' repeats the parameter description without enriching understanding.

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 a summary of protein-protein interactions from a PSICQUIC resource' uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource type (PSICQUIC) and domain (protein-protein interactions). It distinguishes from siblings like 'reactome_psicquic_details' by emphasizing 'summary', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 gives no context about which scenarios favor a summary over details, static interactors, or other related tools. Sibling names indicate related functionality, but explicit recommendations or exclusions are absent.

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