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 mentions filtering and a limit parameter, but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether the search is case-sensitive, how results are ordered, if pagination is supported beyond the limit, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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: a brief purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters with concise explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context like search behavior or result formatting. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should address more operational details for a search tool.

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 substantial value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose, such as 'Filter by session' for session_id and 'Search in input/output summaries' for text. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail format specifics like date formats or status enum values beyond 'ok, error, timeout'.

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: 'Search the activity log with filters.' This specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('activity log'), and the mention of 'filters' hints at its scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_calendar_events' or 'search_documents', which have similar search patterns but target different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the activity log must be populated or if specific permissions are required. There's also no indication of when not to use it or what other tools might be better for related tasks, like 'get_activity_stats' for aggregated data.

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