list_local_genes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: it scans the genes/ directory for phenotype.json files and reports metadata, compile status, and cloud origin. That is meaningful beyond the schema, though it omits whether the operation is strictly read-only and whether large workspaces incur cost or latency.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero redundancy: the first states the scope, the second the mechanism and return contents. Information is front-loaded and nothing needs trimming.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description closes most of the gap by naming the directory scanned and the categories of data returned (metadata, compile status, cloud origin). Only the absence of any safety/permission note and of edge-case behavior (empty workspace, missing genes/) keeps it from being fully complete.

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%, including the enum for fidelity and an example for the domain prefix, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds no filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides — the baseline 3 for full coverage applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List Genes installed in the local project workspace') and adds the mechanism (scanning genes/ for phenotype.json). The 'local' scope distinguishes it from the registry-oriented siblings like search_genes, but the description never names an alternative outright.

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?

Usage is implied by 'local project workspace' — an agent can infer this is for inspecting what is already installed rather than discovering new Genes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to search_genes or list_gene_versions.

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