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: it exports documents, organizes them into 'category/year-month folders', creates 'manifest and metadata markdown files', and offers a dry-run mode. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, what happens with existing files, or whether this is a one-time or recurring sync 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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, behavioral details, and parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by implementation details. While efficient, the second sentence could be slightly more concise by combining folder organization and file creation aspects.

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 this is a data export/mutation tool with no annotations, 1 parameter (0% schema coverage), but with an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core operation and parameter meaning, but lacks important context about authentication, error conditions, what specific documents are exported, and how the output schema relates to the operation. The presence of an output schema reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for more behavioral context.

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 meaningful context for the single parameter 'dry_run' beyond what the schema provides (0% coverage). It explains that dry_run 'Preview changes without exporting,' clarifying its purpose as a test mode. Since there's only one parameter and the description covers it adequately, this earns a strong score despite the low schema coverage.

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: 'Export documents from oncofiles to Google Drive' with specific verb ('Export') and resources ('documents from oncofiles to Google Drive'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sync_from_gdrive' (reverse direction) and 'export_document_package' (different export format), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'gdrive_sync' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 context through 'dry_run' parameter explanation ('Preview changes without exporting'), suggesting this tool should be used for actual exports or testing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'export_document_package' or 'gdrive_sync', and doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, folder setup) or exclusions.

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