Prepare for a doctor visit by compiling a health summary, recent abnormalities, due screenings, and pending queue items, with optional specialty focus.
Preparation package for a visit: summary + recent abnormalities + screening due + pending queue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| specialty | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful composition context by listing the four aggregated sections, but says nothing about patient scoping, latency of an aggregate call, or whether the package is filtered by the specialty parameter.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the enumerated components are easy to scan. It is arguably too terse for an aggregate tool, but nothing is wasted.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the return shape need not be explained. However, for a composite aggregator the description leaves the specialty parameter's effect and the patient/context scope unexplained, so it is only minimally 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 single 'specialty' parameter has no schema description, yet the description never mentions it at all. An agent cannot tell whether specialty filters the whole package, selects screening guidelines, or is merely a label, which is a real gap for a 1-param tool.
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?
Names a concrete deliverable ('preparation package for a visit') and enumerates its four components (summary, recent abnormalities, screening due, pending queue), which lets an agent distinguish it from single-purpose siblings like get_health_summary or get_screening_recommendations. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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 'for a visit' weakly implies the pre-appointment scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings such as get_health_summary plus get_screening_recommendations for a manual equivalent. An agent must infer the use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.