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 states the tool exports data and returns JSON, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether it modifies data. For a tool that likely involves significant data retrieval, this is a notable gap in transparency.

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 in two sentences: the first states the action and context ('on-demand'), the second details the return content. Every word adds value without repetition or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no input parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and return data types adequately. However, for a tool that exports the entire database, it lacks context about potential side effects, performance considerations, or usage constraints that would be important for an AI agent. The output schema may detail the JSON structure, but behavioral completeness is limited.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the input (none required). The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, as there are none to explain. It focuses on the tool's purpose and output instead, which is correct for this case. Baseline would be 4 for 0 parameters.

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 exports the full database as a JSON manifest, specifying the action (export) and resource (full database). It distinguishes from siblings like export_document_package by emphasizing 'full database' and listing included data types (documents, conversations, treatment events, research entries, agent state). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 with 'on-demand' and by listing the data types included, suggesting this is for comprehensive data export. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like export_document_package or query_db, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied but not clearly articulated.

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