oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it returns a URL for user interaction, requires a follow-up call to verify completion, and includes a critical warning about granting read access to ALL events. This covers authentication flow, side effects, and security implications.

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 four sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, describing the return value and user action, specifying verification steps, and providing a critical warning. There's no redundant information, and the warning is appropriately placed for emphasis.

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's complexity (authentication flow with security implications), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns a URL'), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what happens after use, how to verify completion, and includes essential security warnings, covering all necessary context for safe and correct usage.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and behavior. A baseline of 4 is given since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't introduce unnecessary parameter information.

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 ('Start Calendar authorization flow') and resource ('Calendar read access'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_auth_enable or gdrive_auth_url. It explicitly mentions Google Calendar, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Start Calendar authorization flow') and what to do after ('Call integration_status() to verify'). It distinguishes this from other auth-related tools by specifying it's for Calendar, not Gmail or Drive, and includes a prerequisite warning about the scope of access granted.

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