test_gene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that execution happens 'in the sandbox,' which is a meaningful safety signal, but it says nothing about side effects, whether artifacts are written, what happens on failure, or whether compilation output is persisted. The sandbox note is genuine added value but leaves the behavioral picture incomplete.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the concrete checks performed. Every clause carries information and there is no filler, though the enumeration is slightly dense.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description should ideally explain what a test result looks like or what distinguishes a pass from a failure. It covers the inputs checked but not the outcome, and it omits the sibling differentiation an agent needs to route correctly among test_gene, compile_gene, and run_gene.

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 all four parameters (gene_name, verbose, compliance, project_root) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Test a Gene in the sandbox') and enumerates the three internal checks performed (phenotype schema validation, input/output tests, compilation). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings such as compile_gene and run_gene, whose functions are a subset of this one.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus compile_gene, run_gene, or the other validation-oriented siblings. The agent must infer from the tool name alone that this is the comprehensive test entry point.

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