oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some context: it describes the return order ('ordered by date, newest first') and implies a read-only operation (listing). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond limit/offset in schema), or error handling, which are important for a list operation.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second adds behavioral context (ordering). There is no wasted language, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 (list operation), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and ordering but lacks details on usage guidelines, parameter explanations, and behavioral traits like pagination or error handling, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention the 'limit' and 'offset' parameters at all, failing to explain their purpose (e.g., pagination). However, since there are only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the baseline is 3, as the description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 stored medical documents with metadata.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('medical documents'), and scope ('all stored'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'search_documents' or 'get_document_by_id', which prevents a score of 5.

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 'search_documents' (for filtered searches) or 'get_document_by_id' (for specific documents), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context unclear.

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