schedule_followup

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: it's a write operation with restricted roles, automatically computes follow-up frequency per KDIGO 2024, and defines field-level visibility (plan_summary visible to all, note_to_clinician restricted). It also states the return includes next_due_date. It does not mention error handling, idempotency, or auth requirements, but covers critical behavior.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and role restriction, followed by a compact parameter legend. Every clause adds value with no fluff.

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 a write tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, access control, algorithm, key parameters, and return value. The output schema is present, so return details are covered. Missing edge-case behavior and some parameter meanings reduce completeness slightly, but it's strong overall.

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 ckd_stage allowed values (G1-G5D), anchor_date format, and visibility semantics for plan_summary and note_to_clinician. However, it leaves caller, visit_type, albuminuria_stage, and patient_id unexplained, so coverage is partial.

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 verb '创建' (create) and resource '随访计划' (follow-up plan), explicitly noting it is a write operation ('写') with role restrictions. It differentiates from sibling read tools (get_followup_records etc.) by its creation focus and mentions automatic KDIGO calculation.

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 description provides access context (only doctors/nutritionists/orchestration layer) and indicates the tool is for creating follow-up plans with automatic frequency calculation. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to siblings, but the write-vs-read distinction is implicit. The 'MX 收口' note clarifies scope.

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