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. It discloses that it shows 'active patients' and specifies the fields returned (slug, name, document count, patient type), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, or any rate limits/authentication requirements that might be relevant 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 perfectly concise and well-structured: two sentences that each serve a clear purpose. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides crucial usage guidance. There is zero wasted verbiage or redundancy.

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 this is a read-only list operation with 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does, what information it returns, and when to use it versus the key sibling tool. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like pagination or filtering limitations, but for a simple list tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline would be 3. However, the description adds value by clarifying that this lists 'all available patients' and 'active patients,' which helps the agent understand this is a parameterless operation that returns a complete set rather than requiring filtering parameters. This semantic clarification justifies a score above baseline.

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 available patients' with specific details about what information is shown (slug, name, document count, patient type). It distinguishes from the sibling 'select_patient' by mentioning it's for switching patients, not listing them. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list/search tools like 'list_documents' or 'search_documents'.

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 versus alternatives: 'Use select_patient to switch to a different patient.' This clearly distinguishes between listing patients and selecting/activating a patient. It also implies this is for viewing active patients only, though it doesn't explicitly exclude inactive ones.

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