oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns metadata and a file_id, and that the file_id can be used for conversation reference. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, permissions needed, rate limits, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'get' implies reading).

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 brief with three focused sentences: purpose statement, return value usage, and parameter clarification. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient.

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 (so return values don't need explanation), a single parameter with good semantic clarification, and no complex behavioral requirements, the description is reasonably complete. It could benefit from more usage guidance relative to siblings, but covers the essentials for this simple retrieval tool.

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 beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It specifies that 'file_id' refers to 'The Anthropic Files API file_id', clarifying the parameter's origin and format. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 retrieves a document's metadata and file_id for Claude to analyze, specifying both the action (get) and resource (document). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_document_by_id' by not mentioning ID-based retrieval, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'view_document' or other document-related tools.

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 when needing a file_id for Claude analysis, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_document_by_id', 'view_document', or 'list_documents'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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