oncofiles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it describes merging behavior ('Merges the provided updates into the current context... recursively'), persistence ('Persisted to database for durability'), and hints at data structure ('Nested dicts like biomarkers, treatment, physicians'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation 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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by behavioral details and an example. There is minimal waste, though the example could be slightly more concise. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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 (a mutation with merging behavior), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers key behavioral aspects but lacks details on error cases, permissions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement.

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 significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'updates_json' is a 'JSON object with fields to update' and provides an example ('{"treatment": {"current_cycle": 3}}'), clarifying the parameter's purpose and format. This compensates well for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 specific fields in the patient clinical context.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('patient clinical context'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_treatment_event' or 'update_document_category', 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing patient context), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'get_patient_context' or 'update_treatment_event'. 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.