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 return format ('table of documents') and processing behavior, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 with three focused sentences: purpose statement, return format explanation, and usage guidance. The parameter documentation is cleanly separated with 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, but with output schema present, the description is quite complete. It explains purpose, usage, parameters, and return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like authentication or rate limits, but the output schema reduces need to explain 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail. It provides the complete enum values for 'filter' parameter and clarifies the meaning and constraints of 'limit' (max 200). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('per-document status matrix'), detailing what processing stages are included (OCR, AI, metadata, sync, rename). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_pipeline_status' by focusing on document-level status rather than overall pipeline health.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('to find documents that need attention') and implies usage through filter options like 'missing_ocr', but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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