list_patients

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not state rate limits, permissions, pagination, or the meaning of the required `reason` parameter. The purpose of `reason` and its potential effect on the response is unexplained, leaving the agent uncertain about side effects or constraints.

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 concise sentence plus a parenthetical parameter explanation. It front-loads the core purpose and wastes no words, earning a high score for conciseness and structure.

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, the tool lacks annotations and the description does not explain return behavior, the role of `reason`, or usage context relative to siblings. The presence of a required `reason` parameter is unusual and unexplained, creating a significant gap for a simple-looking tool. The description is minimally adequate but incomplete for a dependable agent decision.

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 provides zero description coverage for the single parameter `reason`, so the description's phrase 'why you need this list' adds a minimal semantic: it is a justification string. However, it does not specify format, allowed values, length limits, or whether it affects the returned data, so compensation is partial.

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 'List available patient IDs' clearly states a specific verb+resource (list patients) and the output is patient IDs. It distinguishes somewhat from sibling get_patient by indicating a list operation, but does not clarify what 'available' means (all patients vs. accessible ones), which leaves some ambiguity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_observations or get_patient. The sole mention of `reason` hints at a use case (why you need the list) but does not provide explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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