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 what the tool returns (all checklist sections with source URLs, lab items with latest values and safety status) and mentions the display context purpose of the cycle_number parameter. It doesn't cover potential limitations like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.

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 three focused sentences: purpose statement, return value details, and parameter explanation. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality 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 (medical checklist retrieval), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides good coverage. It explains what data is returned and why the parameter matters. The output schema presumably handles return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context rather than output structure.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter beyond what the schema provides (0% coverage). It explains that cycle_number is 'for display context' rather than just being a numeric input. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and how it affects the output, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific verbs ('Get the full pre-cycle checklist') and resources ('for mFOLFOX6 with source references'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact checklist type (mFOLFOX6) and content (lab safety, toxicity, VTE, general sections with source URLs and patient data). No sibling tools appear to provide similar checklist functionality.

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 retrieve a specific chemotherapy regimen checklist with references and patient data). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes. The context is sufficient but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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