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 effectively describes key behaviors: it 'checks each document's category', 'reports mismatches', and 'optionally corrects them' with a dry-run mode. It also mentions moving GDrive files when correcting, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't cover aspects like permissions needed, error handling, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. The second sentence elaborates on the process, and the Args section clearly explains the parameter. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, 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 (validation and correction with file operations), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains what the tool does, how it behaves, and the parameter's effect. However, it could benefit from mentioning the output format or any limitations, though the output schema may cover return values.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'dry_run' parameter's semantics: 'If True (default), report mismatches without fixing. If False, update categories and move GDrive files.' This adds clear meaning beyond the schema's type and default. Since there's only one parameter, the description adequately covers it.

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 specific verbs ('validate and fix document categories') and resources ('document categories', 'AI-detected document types'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_document_category' by focusing on validation against structured metadata rather than direct updates.

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 'validate and fix document categories by comparing with AI-detected document types', suggesting it's for correcting mismatches between categories and document types. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_document_category' or 'enhance_documents', and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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