parse_hl7v2

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral detail—separators are read from MSH-1/MSH-2—which adds technical context. However, it does not mention error behavior, strictness, or other potential side effects, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 primary action ('Parsea un mensaje HL7 v2 a un AST tipado') and then provides a necessary technical detail. No wasted words; 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?

Given the tool's simple signature (one parameter, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It describes both the input and the output format (typed AST) and a critical parsing behavior (separators from MSH-1/MSH-2). It could mention error handling or validation behavior, but the core functionality is sufficiently conveyed.

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 only one parameter ('message') with zero coverage in the description, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that the 'message' is an HL7 v2 message to be parsed and adds context about separator handling, which gives the parameter meaningful semantics despite lacking constraints or format details.

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 a specific verb ('Parsea' = parses) and resource ('mensaje HL7 v2'), and details the output as a typed AST with segments, fields, and components. This distinguishes it from siblings like map_v2_to_fhir (mapping) and validate_message (validation), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 usage by explaining what the tool does, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide exclusion criteria or alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest context, but no direct guidance is given, so usage context is only implied.

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