list_nursing_conditionsList every condition with an available nursing care plan and every nursing diagnosis covered. Use when a nursing student asks what is covered or wants to browse before choosing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools are clearly distinct: one retrieves a care plan for a specific condition, the other lists all available conditions. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their purposes.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern: 'get_nursing_care_plan' and 'list_nursing_conditions'. The naming is consistent and predictable.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal but is focused on a narrow educational niche. The count is borderline, but it adequately serves its stated purpose of retrieving and browsing care plans.
The core workflow of listing available conditions and retrieving their care plans is fully covered. A minor gap is the lack of search or filtering, but agents can work around this by listing all conditions.