oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions optional filtering and a limit parameter but doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how results are ordered, if pagination is supported, or what the output format looks like. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, though the Args section could be integrated more smoothly. It avoids redundancy and stays focused on essential information.

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, the description covers basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, result ordering) to fully guide 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: 'source' filters by specific sources with examples, and 'limit' sets maximum results. However, it doesn't clarify default behaviors (limit defaults to 50 per schema), source validation, or what happens with invalid inputs. The description adds basic meaning but leaves operational details unclear.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('saved research entries'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'search_research' by focusing on listing rather than searching, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'add_research_entry' or other research-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_research' or 'get_document_by_id' for research entries. The description mentions optional filtering by source but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what happens without it.

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