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 describes the return content ('complete AI call record including system prompt, user prompt, raw AI response, token counts, and timing'), which adds useful context beyond basic functionality. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by details on returns and usage guidelines, with zero wasted words. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 (1 parameter), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and the description's coverage of purpose, usage, and parameter semantics, it is complete enough for effective use. The description addresses key aspects without overloading, fitting the context well.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining 'entry_id: The prompt log entry ID,' adding semantic meaning that clarifies it's an identifier for retrieval. Since there's only one parameter and the description covers it adequately, this meets the baseline for low parameter count.

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 specific action ('Get a single prompt log entry') and resource ('full prompts and raw response'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'search_prompt_log' which is for finding entries rather than retrieving a specific one. The verb 'Get' combined with the detailed scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Use search_prompt_log to find entries,' which clarifies when to use this tool (to retrieve a specific entry by ID) versus the alternative (to search for entries). This direct naming of the sibling tool and its purpose offers clear context for selection.

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