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 so effectively. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the tool returns a URL, requires user interaction with Google's consent screen, enables read access to ALL emails (not just some), and has a verification step. The WARNING about scope of access is particularly valuable.

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 four sentences that each earn their place: states the purpose, describes the return value and required user action, provides next-step guidance, and includes a critical warning. No wasted words.

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?

For an authorization tool with no annotations, 0 parameters, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides complete context. It covers purpose, workflow, security implications, and integration with other tools, leaving no significant gaps for the 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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, focusing instead on the tool's behavioral semantics and workflow.

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 ('Start Gmail authorization flow') and the resource involved ('Gmail read access'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'calendar_auth_enable' by specifying Gmail, and from 'integration_status' by initiating rather than verifying authorization.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Start Gmail authorization flow') and what to do after ('Call integration_status() to verify'). It also distinguishes from alternatives by specifying this is for Gmail (not other services like calendar or gdrive).

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