get_patient

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention what happens when no patient is in context, whether it can return null, authorization requirements, or any side effects. The description is too terse to provide meaningful transparency.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and front-loads the core action ('Get the patient').

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 description lacks critical context about the launch context concept, what 'practice' refers to, and error/edge-case behavior. For a tool with one required parameter and a specific FHIR context, the description is insufficiently complete.

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% and the description does not explain the 'practice' parameter beyond the schema's title. The description's phrase 'for a practice' does not clarify the parameter's meaning, format, or acceptable values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Get') and resource ('patient'), and clarifies the scope ('in the launch context for a practice'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_practitioner or get_coverage.

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 phrase 'in the launch context' implies a specific use case (retrieving the current patient in a SMART on FHIR session), but no explicit guidance is given about when to use this versus alternatives like fhir_get or search_encounter. It provides some context but lacks exclusions or alternative mentions.

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