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 states what the tool returns ('complete tool inventory') but doesn't describe format, pagination, or performance characteristics. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (none exist), but provides only basic behavioral information without details about response structure or limitations.

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 with three sentences that each earn their place: first states the core functionality, second explains the return value, third provides usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded with the essential information, and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 this is a simple read-only tool with 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. It explains what the tool does and why to use it. However, with no annotations and being a meta-tool for system discovery, it could benefit from mentioning whether it requires special permissions or has any rate limits.

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 schema already fully documents the empty parameter set. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It focuses instead on what the tool returns, which is appropriate for a parameterless tool. Baseline would be 4 for 0 parameters.

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 registered MCP tools with their descriptions and parameter schemas.' This specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('registered MCP tools'), and scope ('all'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_documents' or 'list_patients' beyond implying this is a meta-tool for tool discovery.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'for discovery and documentation' and 'Useful for agents to understand available capabilities.' This gives explicit guidance on its primary use cases. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives for specific tool discovery needs.

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