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 states the tool retrieves 'full details' but doesn't specify what those details include, whether it's a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or authentication requirements. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words or unnecessary details.

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 low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage versus siblings and behavioral details, making it incomplete for optimal agent guidance despite the output schema covering return values.

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 minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it clarifies that 'calendar_entry_id' is an ID for a calendar entry. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description doesn't fully compensate by explaining format constraints (e.g., numeric ID range) or examples, so it scores slightly lower.

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 full details of a stored calendar entry by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('calendar entry'), and scope ('by ID'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_calendar_events' or 'get_treatment_event', 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_calendar_events' for broader queries or 'get_treatment_event' for similar ID-based retrieval, nor does it specify prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid calendar entry ID). This lack of context leaves usage unclear.

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