oncofiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool retrieves 'full content' but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or data format. For a read operation with no annotation support, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool 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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a brief parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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, read-only operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics adequately, though it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or usage context.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter: 'entry_id: The conversation entry ID.' Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only specifies type: integer), this clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on ID format or sourcing, preventing a perfect score.

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 the full content of a single conversation entry by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('conversation entry'), and scope ('by ID'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_conversations' or 'log_conversation', which prevents a score 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid entry ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'search_conversations' for broader queries. This minimal guidance limits effective tool selection.

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