Health agenda

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds the term 'deterministic', reinforcing repeatability, and lists the content of the agenda. No contradictions; additional behavioral details (e.g., authentication, rate limits) are absent but the annotations carry the burden.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Return a deterministic agenda') and lists content succinctly. No wasted words and every part earns its place.

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 having an output schema and many siblings, the description omits parameter explanations and does not hint at output structure or scope (e.g., period). Zero parameter coverage forces the description to compensate, but it falls short.

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 0%, yet the description does not mention the 'days' or 'user' parameters at all. It fails to explain their meaning or defaults, leaving the agent without crucial context for invocation.

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 returns a 'deterministic agenda' and lists specific components (due tasks, refills, follow-ups, immunizations, medication schedule), making the purpose very clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_due_tasks or list_medication_schedule by offering a consolidated view.

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 implies that this tool combines multiple list types into one agenda, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the individual list tools. No guidance on when not to use it or alternatives is provided.

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