scan_genes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Scan' implies a read-only inspection and it discloses that candidates plus metadata are returned, but it never confirms the absence of side effects, file writes, or the depth/cost of the scan. Adequate but incomplete for an annotation-free tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the return. No filler, though the second sentence is fairly generic.

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 four optional params and no output schema, the description gives only a vague 'candidates with metadata' return summary and omits any behavioral detail. It is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool but leaves the output shape and scan characteristics undefined.

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's mention of 'source files' vs 'SKILL.md files' loosely mirrors the skills boolean and path params, but adds no format or default detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (Scan) and resource (source files / SKILL.md files) and the outcome (candidate gene functions wrappable as Genes). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling actions like wrap_gene or list_local_genes, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: the scan-for-candidates framing suggests a discovery step preceding wrap_gene, but the description never states when to choose this over wrap_gene or list_local_genes, nor any prerequisites. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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