oncofiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool 'Assembles all documents grouped by category' and returns JSON for rendering, which gives some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool that likely accesses sensitive data.

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 appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by details on output and parameters. It uses bullet points for parameters efficiently. A minor deduction because the first sentence could be more front-loaded with key actions, but overall it's concise and informative.

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 (exporting structured data with parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, output format, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage guidelines and some behavioral details, preventing a perfect score.

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 description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly explains both parameters ('include_metadata' and 'include_timeline') with their purposes and default values, fully compensating for the schema's lack of documentation. This is essential for understanding what these boolean flags control.

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: 'Export a structured document package for consultations or second opinions.' It specifies the verb ('Export') and resource ('structured document package') with context about its use case. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'export_manifest' or 'extract_all_metadata', 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool's purpose but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'export_manifest' or document-related tools. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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