oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only minimally describes behavior. It mentions 'soft-deleted documents' but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what 'soft-deleted' entails (e.g., retention period, recoverability). The description is insufficient for a mutation-sensitive context like trash management.

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 a concise parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, given the sensitive nature of trash operations and lack of annotations, it should ideally mention permissions, data sensitivity, or relationship to restore/delete tools for better 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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'limit' by specifying default (50) and maximum (200) values, which aren't in the schema (0% coverage). This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't explain sorting, filtering, or other implicit behaviors.

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 specific action ('List soft-deleted documents') and resource ('in trash'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_documents, delete_document, and restore_document. It precisely communicates this tool retrieves only soft-deleted items rather than active 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_documents, restore_document, or delete_document. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical workflows involving trash management.

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