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. It discloses the upsert behavior (creates or updates) and mentions persistence, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by a clarifying upsert note, and then a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient 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 (3 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description does well by explaining parameters and behavior. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, it could improve by addressing permissions or error handling, keeping it from a score of 5.

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 adds meaningful semantics for all three parameters: 'key' is explained with examples ('last_briefing_date', 'treatment_protocol'), 'value' as a 'JSON string value to store', and 'agent_id' with its default ('oncoteam'). This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't fully detail constraints like key format or value validation.

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: 'Set a persistent key-value pair for an agent' with 'Upserts: creates the key if new, updates if it already exists.' This specifies the verb (set/upsert), resource (key-value pair), and scope (for an agent). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_agent_state' or 'list_agent_states', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 sibling tools like 'get_agent_state' for retrieval or 'list_agent_states' for listing, nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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