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 effectively describes the return behavior ('Returns all versions ordered newest first') and clarifies that it works with any document ID in the chain. However, it lacks details about permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'Get' implies safety).

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement, behavioral details, and parameter explanation in three concise sentences. Every sentence adds value, and information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 (single parameter, read-like operation), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, how to use it, and the parameter semantics. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on behavior and usage.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides a clear explanation of the single parameter ('doc_id: The integer database ID of any document in the version chain'), including its data type (integer) and semantic meaning (any document in the chain). 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('version history chain for a document'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_document' or 'get_document_by_id' by focusing on version history rather than document content. The phrase 'ordered newest first' adds specificity about the output ordering.

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 ('Get the version history chain for a document') and implicitly distinguishes it from document retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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