oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: the deduplication logic ('Deduplicates by source+external_id'), the non-error response to duplicates ('returns the existing entry without error'), and the purpose ('Save... for reference'). It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or mutation consequences, but covers the core operation adequately.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement, behavioral note, and parameter documentation in bullet points. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, and it's appropriately sized for a tool with 6 parameters and important behavioral nuances.

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 tool has an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers purpose, behavior, and parameters well for a creation/deduplication tool. The only minor gap is lack of explicit error cases or prerequisites, but overall it's quite complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 6 parameters with examples (e.g., 'e.g. pubmed, clinicaltrials', 'e.g. PMID, NCT number', 'JSON array of tags'), going well beyond the bare schema to explain what each parameter represents and how to format them.

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 with specific verbs ('Save a research article or clinical trial found by an agent') and identifies the resource ('research entry'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'list_research_entries' and 'search_research' by focusing on creation/deduplication rather than retrieval.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('found by an agent') and mentions deduplication behavior, which helps differentiate it from simple creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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