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 a read-only listing operation but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the format of returned data. The mention of 'persistent state keys' hints at storage behavior, but this is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It is appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps in completeness.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'agent_id' as 'Agent identifier (default: oncoteam)' and 'limit' as 'Maximum number of states to return (default 100, max 500).' This adds crucial semantic context beyond the schema's type and default values, though it does not fully cover all potential constraints or usage nuances.

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: 'List all persistent state keys for an agent.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('persistent state keys'), and scope ('for an agent'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'get_agent_state', which appears to retrieve a specific state rather than list keys.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_agent_state' or 'set_agent_state', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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