Draft ACMG/AMP Variant Classification

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint. Description adds that it uses ACMG/AMP 2015 criteria and computational evidence, and clarifies it is a draft not a final review. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is only three lines, each sentence adds value. First sentence states purpose, second details method, third provides usage caveat. No wasted words.

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?

Given complexity of variant classification, description covers purpose, method, and usage context. Output schema exists to document return values. Could mention input validation, but schema handles it. Overall sufficient.

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?

Input schema already has detailed descriptions for both parameters (hgvs with example, inheritance_pattern with enum meanings). The description does not add new parameter-specific information, so baseline 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?

Starts with 'Generate a draft ACMG/AMP variant classification framework' - specific verb and resource. Clearly describes populating ACMG/AMP 2015 criteria from computational evidence, differentiating it from sibling tools like 'triage_variant_3d' and 'generate_variant_clinical_report'.

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?

States 'Designed to pre-populate variant interpretation forms for clinical laboratory review — NOT a substitute for expert review.' Provides context for when to use (drafting) and a caution against misuse, but does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use.

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