reactome_top_pathways

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves root pathways and gives examples; it does not disclose the return format, default species behavior, error handling, or any potential side effects. While the action is simple and non-destructive, the lack of additional behavioral context leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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 highly concise, consisting of two sentences that provide essential information and helpful examples. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose but misses some contextual details. It does not mention that the species parameter is optional with a default, nor does it describe the return structure. The absence of behavioral transparency also reduces completeness, but the description is minimally sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's main function.

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 fully describes the single 'species' parameter with its default value and type, achieving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that it operates 'for a species.' With full schema coverage, the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all top-level (root) pathways for a species.' It also provides concrete examples ('Immune System', 'Metabolism') to illustrate the meaning of 'top-level (root) pathways.' This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like reactome_events_hierarchy or reactome_get_pathway.

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 when to use the tool (when needing top-level pathway categories for a species), but it does not explicitly address alternatives or exclusion criteria. It does not mention any sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer the tool's specific role from the description alone. This is adequate but not explicit.

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