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 helpfully states the return behavior for non-existent keys ('Returns {value: null} if the key does not exist'), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or any rate limits or constraints.

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 perfectly structured and concise. It leads with the core purpose, follows with important behavioral information (null return case), then provides parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundant information.

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 an output schema (mentioned in context signals), the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the core purpose, key behavioral trait (null return), and parameter meanings. For a simple key-value retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from mentioning the sibling relationship with 'list_agent_states'.

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, the description compensates well by explaining both parameters: 'key: State key name' and 'agent_id: Agent identifier (default: oncoteam).' This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. The description doesn't elaborate on key naming conventions or agent_id significance, but provides solid basic parameter understanding.

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 a persistent state value by key.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('persistent state value') combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_agent_states' which presumably lists multiple states rather than retrieving a specific one by key.

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 doesn't mention the sibling tool 'list_agent_states' or explain when to retrieve a single value versus list all values. The only contextual information is the default agent_id value, which doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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