oncofiles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature through 'Get' and 'Returns', and describes the comprehensive report format. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving behavioral gaps for a system health tool.

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 that are front-loaded: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the return value's utility, and the third provides specific data included. No wasted sentences, though minor repetition exists between 'system health overview' and 'comprehensive status report'.

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 (system monitoring with multiple data types), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description provides good coverage. It explains what data is included and the tool's purpose, though it could better address behavioral aspects like permissions or limitations given the lack of annotations.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on what the tool returns, which is valuable context beyond the empty schema.

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 'Get system health overview' followed by specific components (sync history, document counts, resource usage, errors). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on system monitoring rather than patient/document operations, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 with 'useful for monitoring and debugging' and lists specific data included (7-day sync statistics, recent sync runs, memory usage, document counts). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other diagnostic tools or provide clear exclusions.

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