oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the dry-run vs. execute behavior (critical for safety), explains the default mode, and describes how optional descriptions are handled. It lacks details on permissions, errors, or rate limits, but covers core behavioral traits adequately.

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 purpose and standard format, followed by dry-run explanation and parameter details in a structured 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value: no fluff, efficient communication of key information in a logical flow.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a strong job explaining parameters and behavior. Since an output schema exists, it needn't detail return values. However, it could briefly mention what the output looks like (e.g., preview list or confirmation) for better completeness, but it's largely adequate.

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 fully. It does: it explains both parameters clearly—dry_run's purpose and default, and en_descriptions' optional JSON mapping with examples—adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. This is excellent compensation for the coverage gap.

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 'rename' and the resource 'documents', specifying the transformation from 'old naming conventions' to a detailed 'standard format' with a concrete example. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_document_category' or 'enhance_documents' by focusing solely on renaming for standardization.

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 it: to rename documents to a specific standard format. It implicitly suggests usage when documents have non-standard names, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'update_document_category' might be for different changes).

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