atlas_list_scorers

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

With no annotations, the description carries full load and does well: it discloses the return contents (name, number of tracks, assays), a caching behavior ('Cached for the session after the first call'), and the data scope (hg38, chr1-22, chrX, chrY, SNVs only). It does not state permissions or pagination, but for a static enumerator that is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and return contents, then scope constraints. Three short paragraphs earn their place, though the long parenthetical scorer-name enumeration adds bulk that could be trimmed.

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 zero-param enumerator with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, how to use it downstream, caching, and the dataset boundaries. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds cross-tool value by explaining how the returned names feed the `scorers` parameter elsewhere, which is meaningful context beyond the empty schema.

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 the variant scorers available in the AlphaGenome Atlas') and enumerates the concrete scorer names returned. An agent can distinguish this enumeration tool from scoring tools like predict_variant_effect without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: 'Use these names in the `scorers` parameter of the other tools,' and names the alternative and exclusion ('Indels and multi-nucleotide variants are not in it; use predict_variant_effect for those'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are stated.

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