get_patient_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: role-based data redaction (full view vs no biochemistry vs parent-limited), inclusion of 5-day diet diary and cross-month biochemistry in full view, and the mandatory guardian_token for parent access. This goes beyond typical descriptions and directly informs the agent of access-control 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 sentences: the first gives the purpose and core content in a compact list, the second details view variations. No fluff, all sentences carry information, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description explains the role-based view variations, which is essential for using this tool correctly. It also mentions the inclusion of diet diary and biochemistry in the full view, which are important contextual details not inferable from schema or annotations. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains that 'caller' determines the view and that 'guardian_token' is required for the parent view. Patient_id is not described but is self-evident from schema/name. This adds meaningful semantics for two of three parameters, but leaves patient_id implicit, so it is not a full compensation.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: '读取患儿档案' (read patient profile) and enumerates the contained fields (demographics, diagnosis stage, etiology, dialysis modality, allergies, nutrition ceiling). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_diagnosis (single diagnosis) or get_nutrition_ceiling (only the ceiling) by presenting the full profile scope.

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 role-based context for when to use the tool, listing which callers (doctor assistant, risk warning, dispatch, nutritionist, parent) get which views and that parent view requires guardian_token. This is clear usage context but no explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives are named, so it does not fully meet the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' bar.

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