list_conditionsList all conditions and medications available through Appendix
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| category | No | Filter by category name (case-insensitive, e.g. 'respiratory') |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds minimal extra context ('available through Appendix') but doesn't elaborate on behavioral implications like page limits or data freshness. No contradiction.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part (verb, resource, scope) is necessary and immediately informative.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits what 'Appendix' refers to and whether the output includes both conditions and medications as implied by the title. Still, annotations provide missing behavioral safety.
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 100%, and the schema already describes the 'category' parameter with case-insensitivity and an example. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 action ('List') and the resource ('all conditions and medications available through Appendix'). It distinguishes from sibling tools: 'search_knowledge_base' implies searching, not listing all, and 'submit_encounter' is a write operation.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'search_knowledge_base'. Lacks mention of prerequisites or context where listing all is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing conditions, searching knowledge base, and submitting encounters. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (list_conditions, search_knowledge_base, submit_encounter).
Three tools is on the smaller side but appropriate for the focused domain of medical reference and encounter submission. Each tool serves a clear function.
The core workflow (list conditions, search, submit) is covered, but missing operations like retrieving encounter history or managing submitted encounters would aid completeness.