oncofiles

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a read operation (showing/returning status), it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether it's a real-time check or cached data, what happens if services aren't configured, or error conditions. For a status-checking tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, and the second sentence provides valuable clarifying detail about which specific services are covered. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 that the tool has zero parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate basic context. However, as a status-checking tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention authentication requirements or what 'authorized' means in practice. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral aspects remain under-specified.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly indicates no parameters are needed ('Show which Google services are connected' implies a parameterless status check), which aligns perfectly with the empty input schema. No additional parameter semantics are needed or provided.

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: 'Show which Google services are connected and entry counts' and 'Returns the status of Drive, Gmail, and Calendar integrations'. It specifies the verb ('show', 'returns') and resources (Drive, Gmail, Calendar integrations), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gdrive_auth_status' or 'system_health' that might provide overlapping status information.

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 when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from similar sibling tools like 'gdrive_auth_status', 'gdrive_sync_status', or 'system_health'. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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