get_nutrition_ceiling

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 discloses that this is a read operation ('读取') and that the data represents doctor-set limits, which implies authority. However, it does not mention any auth prerequisites (e.g., guardian_token), behavior when data is missing, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and purpose. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states what is returned (the six limits) and why it matters (as constraints for nutrition/recipes). It lacks explicit mention of preconditions or error handling, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity and the existence of an 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter-level guidance. While parameter names like patient_id and caller are somewhat self-explanatory, guardian_token and the exact role of caller remain unexplained. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema already exposes, and does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 doctor-defined upper limits for six specific nutrients and fluids, and it positions this as a hard constraint for nutrition calculation and recipe generation. This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_patient_profile or get_diagnosis.

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 clear context: the tool is to be used when performing nutrition calculations or generating recipes, where these limits act as hard constraints. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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