get_critical_values

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait of scanning the most recent sample and returning only when critical thresholds are hit. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it does not clarify behaviors such as what happens when no critical value is found, whether it returns all hits or just the first, or whether it operates per patient or globally. This leaves meaningful gaps.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('危急值独立通道') and then specifies the threshold logic. It is efficient, though the opening phrase is somewhat redundant with the tool name and uses domain jargon that may not be self-explanatory to all agents.

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?

The description provides essential threshold values and the scanning behavior, and the presence of an output schema removes the need to describe return values. However, it fails to clarify how patient_id scopes the operation, which is a required parameter, and leaves ambiguity about what 'most recent sample' means in a multi-patient context. These gaps make the description only minimally complete for correct 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain either parameter. The required patient_id is not mentioned as a filter for which patient's sample to scan, and the caller default is ignored. The description adds no value beyond the schema's bare type/default fields.

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 identifies a dedicated critical-values channel that scans the latest lab sample and returns when thresholds are hit (K+>6.5, Hb<60, Ca<1.6). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_labs and get_lab_trend, which are general-purpose lab retrieval tools. The verb 'scan' and specific threshold criteria make the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase '危急值独立通道' indicates this is a specialized, separate path for critical-value alerts, which signals when to prefer this tool over general lab-fetching siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so there is room for more explicit exclusion guidance.

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