oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it discloses that the tool downloads lab documents (100KB-2MB each), returns them inline for Claude to read, includes patient context, and advises keeping limits low to avoid large responses. This covers key operational traits beyond basic functionality.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by behavioral notes and parameter details. Every sentence adds value—no wasted words—and it's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and no annotations.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining inputs, behavior, and context. It could be more complete by detailing the output format or error handling, but it covers the essentials for a read-oriented tool with no annotations.

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 clearly explains both parameters: 'file_id' (specific lab to analyze or omitted for recent labs) and 'limit' (maximum documents, default 3). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on format or constraints.

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: 'Analyze recent lab results with oncology context.' It specifies the verb ('analyze'), resource ('lab results'), and domain context ('oncology'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_labs' or 'get_lab_summary,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 context ('under chemotherapy') and provides parameter guidance (e.g., 'If omitted, fetches the most recent labs'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_labs' or 'get_lab_summary.' The guidance is helpful but incomplete for sibling differentiation.

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