get_bioconda_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'latest version' and the source, but does not discuss side effects, rate limits, authentication, or error handling. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may cover return structure, but core behavioral traits are undressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous text. It efficiently communicates the tool's action, object, and source.

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 the simple one-parameter tool and the existence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for basic usage. It omits network dependency or error states, but these are less critical for such a straightforward get operation.

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 100%, so the description adds only marginal context beyond 'package name' by specifying the tool's domain and source. This is adequate for a single parameter, resulting in the baseline score.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'latest version of a Bioconda package', and the source 'from anaconda.org'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting different ecosystems like npm, Ruby, or Python.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the naming and resource mention (Bioconda, anaconda.org) imply the intended context. No exclusions or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

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