get_pew_history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: the expected input shape ({date, score, level}), the architectural role (facade per ADR-007, storage owned by M3), and a design constraint (zero cross-package imports). However, it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether merging into the timeline has side effects, or failure behavior — '并入' (merge) is ambiguous about mutation.

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 compact — three short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded ('PEW 历史聚合 facade'). It avoids filler. The ADR-007 reference and '零跨包 import' are niche implementation details that add limited value for an agent, but they are brief and do not significantly bloat the text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere, and the description adequately conveys the data contract and architectural role. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage on parameters, the missing usage guidance and the ambiguous side-effect profile of the merge operation leave the description incomplete for safe agent invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: it documents pew_history as the M3 get_pew_history output with entries of {date, score, level}, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'array of objects with additionalProperties'. However, patient_id is left unexplained, and it is unclear when pew_history should be supplied versus left as the default null.

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 states a specific function: aggregate PEW history data from M3 (list of {date, score, level}) into a unified follow-up timeline, which gives a clear verb+resource. It is contextually distinct from siblings like schedule_followup and get_adherence_score. However, the architectural jargon 'facade,' the ADR-007 reference, and the mismatch between the name 'get_pew_history' (suggesting retrieval) and the described merge/aggregation behavior introduce 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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no exclusions are provided. The only implicit hint is '接受 M3 get_pew_history 的输出' (accepts M3 get_pew_history output), which suggests it is for integrating M3-sourced data, but the description never says when to choose this tool over siblings or what prerequisites must be met.

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