get_participants

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the input type (stable id or DB_ID), the return format including nested structures, and edge-case behavior (empty lists for non-reactions). This is thorough but could explicitly state read-only nature.

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?

The description is concise, using a clear structure: purpose statement, Args, Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the return value structure, including nested dicts for inputs/outputs/catalysts and DB_ID fields. It also covers edge cases, making the tool's behavior completely clear.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds crucial context: 'A ReactionlikeEvent (Reaction/BlackBoxEvent/...) stable id or DB_ID.' This clarifies what the single 'id' parameter represents, going beyond the schema's generic string type.

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 starts with 'Get the inputs, outputs, and catalysts of a reaction-like event,' clearly specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_object or get_pathway_events by focusing on participants of reactions.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving reaction participants but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state conditions to avoid using this tool. No when-not guidelines are provided.

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