bioc_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses key behaviors: AND condition for filters (OR not supported), maximum result set size (>100, albeit ambiguously phrased), zero-based offset, and Instance Administrator permission requirement. It also provides an example request body. However, it does not describe the response format and contains minor typos/ambiguities ('incidents', '>100').

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 well-structured with a brief intro, bullet points, permissions, and an example. It is somewhat redundant ('Get BIOCs' followed by 'Return a list of BIOCs') and has a typo ('incidents' instead of 'BIOCs'), but overall it is fairly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides a good degree of completeness for a list-getter: it covers permissions, filter behavior, pagination (offset), size limit, and an example. However, it lacks response format details and has ambiguous wording ('maximum result set size is >100') and a copy-paste error ('incidents').

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema by explaining the AND condition for filters and offset behavior, and provides an example request body. However, it does not explicitly map these concepts to parameter names (filters, search_from, search_to) and does not compensate for the undocumented top-level request_data parameter. Schema coverage is 0%, but the nested schema descriptions are detailed, so the description's added value is limited.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get BIOCs' and 'Return a list of BIOCs.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like bioc_insert and bioc_delete by focusing on retrieval, and mentions optional filtering and extended view.

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 via 'You can return all BIOCs or filter results' and notes the permission requirement and endpoint path, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria. It gives context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives.

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