CarePlanKit — Nursing Care Plans

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by clarifying the output contents and stating it is 'Educational reference, not medical advice'. This discloses limitations and purpose, which is valuable for an AI agent. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but well-structured, front-loading the main verb 'Get a full nursing care plan' and then listing details and usage context. Each sentence contributes meaningful information, though the example conditions are somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is comprehensive: it details all expected return sections, target audience, and use cases. The educational disclaimer also addresses potential misuse. This fully equips an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 already fully documents the single 'condition' parameter with examples, and the description repeats those examples ('sepsis, CHF, COPD, diabetes, pneumonia or MI') without adding new semantics such as formatting or constraints. Given the schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves a 'full nursing care plan for a specific condition' and enumerates contents (assessment, diagnoses, goals, interventions, rationales, evaluation, sources). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_nursing_diagnosis, which focuses on a single diagnosis, and list_nursing_conditions, which likely lists conditions.

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 explicitly says 'Use when a nursing student asks for a care plan, nursing diagnoses, interventions, goals or AEB statements for any condition', providing clear context for when to select this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, especially relative to the sibling tool get_nursing_diagnosis, so it lacks exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds context beyond those: it specifies exactly what content is returned and clarifies the tool is an educational reference, not medical advice. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise and front-loaded: it states the main purpose first, then lists content, then provides usage examples and disclaimer. Two sentences carry all necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what will be returned. With one parameter, complete usage guidance, and clear behavioral context, the description is comprehensive for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single 'diagnosis' parameter. The description enriches this by giving concrete examples (e.g., 'Risk for Infection', 'Acute Pain') and clarifying that it expects NANDA-style diagnoses, which is valuable beyond the schema.

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 retrieves care plan material for a specific NANDA-style nursing diagnosis, listing concrete components (definition, related factors, defining characteristics, goals, interventions, conditions). It distinguishes itself by focusing on diagnosis-specific material rather than a full care plan or disease information.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use when a nursing student asks about a diagnosis rather than a disease' and includes examples like 'risk for infection', 'acute pain'. It also provides a when-not ('rather than a disease') and a disclaimer ('Educational reference, not medical advice'), but does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool.

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

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds minimal nuance by noting it lists both conditions and diagnoses, but does not add deeper behavioral context such as return format or ordering. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences: the first states what the tool does, the second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, information is front-loaded.

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, parameterless listing tool with read-only annotations, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context. It could specify returned fields or ordering, but that is not essential for such a straightforward tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. Per guideline, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when no parameters exist.

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 lists every condition with an available nursing care plan and every nursing diagnosis covered. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that distinguishes it from sibling tools that retrieve individual care plans or diagnoses.

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 explicitly says 'Use when a nursing student asks what is covered or wants to browse before choosing,' providing clear context and implying the alternative of using get_nursing_care_plan/get_nursing_diagnosis for specific lookups.

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