get_diagnosis

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The verb '读取' (read) is largely tautological with the tool name and does not reveal additional traits such as authorization requirements (e.g., guardian_token), error behavior, or whether the operation is safe. No annotations exist to supplement this.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the purpose. It is concise, contains no filler, and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description still omits essential context about guard_token semantics and how this tool fits with siblings. The brevity leaves gaps in usage guidance and security model, making it incomplete despite the output schema.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain patient_id, caller, or guardian_token. The agent must guess parameter meanings from names alone, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 reads the doctor-confirmed CKD stage and dialysis method, specifying the audience and purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_patient_profile and get_nutrition_ceiling by focusing on diagnosis data.

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 context by stating it is intended for nutritionists and parent assistants to avoid re-calculating the stage, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or compare with alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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