get_adherence_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the side effect of recording, which conflicts with the name 'get', and provides the calculation method. However, it lacks details on idempotency, permissions, or what happens on repeated calls.

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 compact three-sentence summary covering purpose, formula, and thresholds without waste. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

The core calculation logic is fully specified, but usage guidance, complete parameter descriptions, and side-effect clarity are missing. An output schema exists, so return values are not required, but selection and invocation context is incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the three ratio parameters and their range, but does not describe the 'caller' parameter or explicitly map patient_id to schema fields, leaving gaps.

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 the tool calculates and records an adherence score, with explicit formula and grading thresholds. It is distinctly different from sibling tools (followup scheduling, records, PEW history).

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?

Usage is implied for adherence scoring, but no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. The description notes M4 owns the adherence data, which gives context but does not exclude other tools.

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