Score Sentinel healthcare workflows via POST /v1/score
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | Optional scoring flags such as explanation or threshold controls. | |
| payload | Yes | Structured workflow payload matching Sentinel /v1/score for the selected workflow. | |
| workflow | Yes | Workflow identifier such as healthcare.denial, healthcare.prior_auth, or healthcare.reimbursement. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method 'POST' and domain context but does not disclose auth requirements, response behavior, or any side effects beyond what annotations provide.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the action, resource, and endpoint in 8 words.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns or how scoring works. It only gives a terse endpoint reference, omitting expected output, prerequisites, and practical usage context despite the nested payload complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all three parameters (workflow, payload, options). The tool description adds no extra parameter context, so the schema already carries the semantic burden.
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 uses a specific verb 'score' with a clear resource 'Sentinel healthcare workflows' and includes the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like score_batch (batch) and validate_workflow_payload (validation).
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as score_batch or get_workflow_schema. The description simply states the action without context or exclusions.
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 targets a distinct concern: account limits, usage, workflow schema, workflow list, single scoring, batch scoring, feedback, and payload validation. The only potential overlap (score_workflow vs score_batch) is clearly delineated by batch versus single operation.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscore separation (get_*, list_*, score_*, submit_*, validate_*). The naming convention is uniform and predictable.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for a scoring API, covering account management, workflow discovery, scoring, validation, and feedback without unnecessary redundancy.
The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage for the domain: discovering workflows, fetching schemas, validating payloads, scoring (single or batch), checking account limits/usage, and submitting feedback. No obvious gaps exist.