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. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects: whether this requires authentication, what format the aggregated statistics return in, whether there are rate limits, or how null filters behave. The description only states what the tool does, not how it behaves.

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 appropriately concise with a clear two-part structure: purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Both sections are front-loaded and efficient. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly rather than using 'Args:' formatting.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and the description covers all parameters, the description is reasonably complete for a read operation. However, for a statistics aggregation tool, additional context about what 'aggregated' means (counts, averages, etc.) and the structure of the output would be helpful despite the output schema's existence.

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 provides explicit parameter documentation in the Args section, listing all 4 parameters with brief explanations. Since schema description coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the schema properties), the description fully compensates by documenting each parameter's purpose and format (e.g., 'YYYY-MM-DD' for dates). This is valuable semantic information beyond the bare schema.

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: 'Get aggregated activity statistics by tool and status.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('aggregated activity statistics'), and grouping dimensions ('by tool and status'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_activity_log' or 'get_prompt_log_entry', 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. There are several related tools in the sibling list (search_activity_log, get_prompt_log_entry, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when this aggregated statistics view is preferable to raw log searches or other data retrieval methods.

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