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 reveals important behavioral traits: the tool has two operational modes, handles large documents (100KB-2MB), and has a default limit of 10 documents. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or potential rate limits. The description adds useful context but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 clear sections: purpose statement, mode explanation, size warning, and parameter definitions. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool with multiple operational modes. Some sentences could be more concise (e.g., 'provide file_id_a and file_id_b to compare two specific lab sets' could be simplified), but overall it's efficient and front-loaded.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining parameters and usage modes. However, for a comparison tool with no annotations, it should ideally describe the output format (what the comparison results look like) and any error conditions. The size warning is helpful, but more behavioral context would improve completeness for this moderately complex tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 5 parameters, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic explanations for all parameters. It explains the purpose of file_id_a/file_id_b for specific comparisons, date_from/date_to for range queries, and limit for controlling result size. The description adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, clarifying how parameters interact in different modes.

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: 'Compare lab results over time to identify trends.' It specifies the resource (lab results) and verb (compare), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compare_lab_panels' or 'get_lab_trends' which might have overlapping functionality. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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 usage guidance by outlining two modes (specific vs. date range) and specifying parameter combinations. It mentions a size constraint ('Each lab document is 100KB-2MB. Keep limit reasonable.') which helps inform usage decisions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_lab_panels' or 'get_lab_trends' from the sibling list.

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