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 cover other critical aspects: authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID is invalid), rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief 'Args' section. There's no wasted text. However, the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation into the main description rather than a separate section.

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 (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks context on usage, behavioral details, and error handling. With no annotations and simple inputs, it meets the baseline but doesn't provide rich guidance for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description adds basic semantics: it explains that 'event_id' is 'The treatment event ID' and that it's required to get details. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., integer range), source of IDs, or examples. With one parameter and low schema coverage, this provides minimal but adequate clarification.

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 treatment event by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('treatment event'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_treatment_events' (which lists events) and 'update_treatment_event' (which modifies events). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_document_by_id' or 'get_calendar_event', which are similar 'get by ID' operations for different resources.

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 siblings like 'list_treatment_events' for browsing events or 'update_treatment_event' for modifying them. There's also no context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an event ID from elsewhere) or exclusions (e.g., not for creating events).

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