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 of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a brief 'Args' section. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though the 'Args' formatting is slightly informal for MCP standards. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. However, with no annotations and minimal behavioral or usage context, it leaves gaps in guiding the agent effectively. It's adequate but could be more informative for a read operation in a clinical 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 minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it names the parameter ('email_entry_id') and specifies it's 'The email entry ID.' With 0% schema description coverage, this provides some context, but it doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. The baseline is 3 since the schema covers the parameter's existence and type, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 full details of a stored email entry by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('stored email entry'), and scope ('full details by ID'). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_emails' or 'get_document_by_id', which prevents a perfect score.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_emails' for broader queries or 'get_document' for other document types, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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