differential_diagnosis

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

Discloses return format (scored candidates with matched_in), search method (field-weighted keyword search), and versioning (v0.1, v0.2 pending). Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately conveys behavioural traits.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no extraneous information. Every sentence provides value: purpose, return format, and technical context.

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 no output schema, the description covers return format and versioning. It omits pagination or error handling but is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's function and output. Missing details like limit and modifier behaviour are minor.

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?

Adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the ranking mechanism and return structure. While schema covers 67% of parameters, the description clarifies how observations drive the search and that 'matched_in' is returned. Does not repeat schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'rank' and resource 'dysfunctions', specifying it matches observed behaviours. It distinguishes from siblings like get_differential_map by focusing on ranking and scoring.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_differential_map or get_dysfunction. The description implies usage for matching behaviours but lacks exclusion criteria or contextual indicators.

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