oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool changes connection state, the selection persists across requests, and it affects all subsequent tool calls. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, or what happens if an invalid patient slug is provided.

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 structured: a clear purpose statement followed by behavioral context, then parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words. The two-sentence format with a parameter explanation is efficient and front-loaded.

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 (state-changing operation), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the core functionality and persistence behavior well. However, for a state-changing tool with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning error handling or confirmation of successful selection.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description adds significant value by explaining what 'patient_slug' represents and providing examples ('q1b', 'e5g'). This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation, though it doesn't specify format constraints or validation rules.

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 with a specific verb ('Switch') and resource ('patient'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which perform different operations like adding, analyzing, or retrieving data. It explicitly describes changing the active patient context for the connection.

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 about when to use this tool: to switch patients for subsequent operations. It mentions that the selection persists across requests, which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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