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 useful context: events are returned in 'reverse chronological order', and it mentions filtering capabilities and a limit parameter. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination, error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for a list operation with potential large datasets.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds behavioral context (ordering), and the Args section efficiently details parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, ordering, and parameter meanings. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral details (e.g., pagination, auth), but the output schema reduces the need for return value explanation.

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 provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: 'event_type' (e.g., chemo, surgery), 'date_from' and 'date_to' (YYYY-MM-DD format), and 'limit' (maximum results). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify default values or constraints like the 50 default for limit.

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 treatment events, optionally filtered by type and date range.' This specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('treatment events'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_treatment_event' (singular) or 'add_treatment_event'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_patients', 'list_documents'), which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'optionally filtered by type and date range', suggesting when to apply filters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_activity_log' or 'get_journey_timeline', which might overlap in functionality. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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