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 states this is an update/mutation tool ('Update the category'), implying it modifies data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 well-structured and concise. It starts with a clear purpose statement, follows with usage guidance, and then details parameters in a formatted 'Args:' section. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 (2 parameters, mutation operation) and no annotations, the description does well: it explains purpose, usage, and parameters thoroughly. Since there's an output schema (per context signals), it doesn't need to describe return values. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context (e.g., error cases or prerequisites), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 fully. It does so by clearly explaining both parameters: 'doc_id' as 'The integer database ID of the document' and 'category' with a detailed list of allowed values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter usage unambiguous.

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: 'Update the category of a document' with the verb 'update' and resource 'document category'. It provides a concrete example ('from "other" to "reference"'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'validate_categories' or 'rename_documents_to_standard', which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage guidance with 'Use this to recategorize documents', which implies when to use it. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'validate_categories' might be related). The guidance is helpful but incomplete, lacking explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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