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 the tool's core behavior (downloads and returns file content inline) and specifies supported formats (image or PDF). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, file size constraints, or error conditions that would be important for a download 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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by important behavioral details, then parameter documentation. Every sentence earns its place, with zero redundant information. The structure (purpose → behavior → args) is logical 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?

For a single-parameter download tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, behavior, and parameter meaning. It could be more complete by mentioning authentication needs or error handling, but given the tool's relative simplicity, it's mostly adequate.

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% schema description coverage and only one parameter, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining what 'file_id' represents ('The Anthropic Files API file_id'). This adds crucial semantic meaning beyond the bare schema, specifying the exact identifier system required.

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 specific action ('Download a document'), the resource ('document'), and the outcome ('return its content for Claude to read'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_document' (which likely returns metadata) by emphasizing actual file content retrieval and inline analysis capability.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('to read and analyze document content directly'), but doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies this is for content access rather than metadata retrieval, which helps differentiate from similar tools in the sibling list.

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