oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by detailing behavioral aspects: it specifies threshold sources (NCCN, SmPC, EU/WHO/ESC), returns safety status with color codes, includes clickable verification links, and describes the output structure. However, it omits details like error handling, performance, or authentication needs.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by patient-type specifics and output details. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise by combining some clauses without losing clarity.

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 complexity (safety checking with multiple guidelines), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is complete. It covers purpose, patient-type logic, threshold sources, return values, and verification links, providing all necessary context without needing to explain output schema details.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's function and output without redundant parameter details, earning a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 performs a 'lab safety check against thresholds appropriate for the patient type,' specifying distinct threshold sets for oncology vs. general patients. It differentiates from siblings like 'analyze_labs' or 'get_lab_summary' by focusing on safety status against guidelines rather than analysis or summary reporting.

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 for safety checking based on patient type (oncology or general) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compare_lab_panels' or 'get_lab_trends.' It provides context on patient types but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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