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 the tool returns structured patient data but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what happens if no patient is selected, or any rate limits. While it implies a safe read operation, critical behavioral traits are missing for a tool with zero 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second details the returned data. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core function. There's no wasted verbiage.

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 (retrieving clinical context), the description is moderately complete. It specifies the returned data types, which is helpful, and an output schema exists to detail the return values. However, with no annotations and missing behavioral context (e.g., prerequisites, error conditions), it leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's correct invocation.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description compensates by explaining what data is returned (diagnosis, biomarkers, etc.), which is valuable context for a parameterless tool.

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 the current patient clinical context' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('patient clinical context'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_patient_context' (which modifies rather than retrieves) and 'select_patient' (which likely chooses a patient rather than fetching their data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other data-fetching tools like 'get_document' or 'get_lab_summary', which slightly reduces specificity.

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 prerequisites (e.g., whether a patient must be selected first), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'get_journey_timeline' or 'get_lab_summary'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

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