oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states 'Record' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this creates a new record or updates existing ones, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description is minimal beyond the basic action.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a well-organized 'Args:' section that documents each parameter efficiently. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 (which handles return values), 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description does well by explaining all parameters semantically. However, it could provide more behavioral context about the mutation operation. For a write tool with no annotations, it's mostly complete but has room for improvement on behavioral aspects.

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. It provides clear semantic meaning for all 5 parameters beyond just their names, explaining what each represents (e.g., 'Date of the event', 'Type of event', 'Short title', etc.) and which are optional. This adds significant value over the bare 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Record a treatment milestone') and resource ('treatment milestone'), with concrete examples (chemo cycle, surgery, scan result, etc.). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_activity_log' or 'add_research_entry' by focusing on medical treatment events.

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 recording medical treatment events, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_treatment_event' or 'delete_treatment_event'. It provides context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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