oncofiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'metadata' specifically includes. The description adds basic context but lacks depth 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and efficient for an AI agent.

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 largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately. A slight gap exists in behavioral details like error handling, but the output schema mitigates this, making it very helpful overall.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explaining the single parameter 'doc_id' as 'The integer database ID of the document,' adding meaning beyond the schema's type definition. It clarifies that this is a numeric ID from the database, which is crucial context not in the schema. With only one parameter, this is sufficient for high utility.

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 specific action ('Get a document's metadata') and resource ('by its integer database ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_document' (which likely uses a different identifier) and 'view_document' (which might retrieve content rather than metadata). The verb 'Get' is precise and the scope is well-defined.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use this when you have the numeric document ID (e.g. from search results or lab values).' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_documents' or 'list_documents' that don't require a specific ID, making it highly actionable for an AI agent.

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