get_labs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: ascending time order, and the restricted view for 'parent_assistant' (only trend direction and reference range status, no raw values). This adds meaningful transparency beyond the basic action, though it omits details like error handling or auth requirements.

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, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the core function, the second explains an important conditional behavior. No wasted words.

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 the tool's complexity (two params, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behavior and the caller-dependent view. It does not mention pagination, sorting beyond ascending, or error cases, but these are likely less critical for a read operation. The output schema presumably details return values, so the description need not repeat them.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It significantly clarifies the 'caller' parameter by explaining its effect on the returned data, adding value beyond the schema. The 'patient_id' parameter is implied but not detailed; however, the schema already marks it as required and its purpose is evident.

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 returns all lab panels for a patient in ascending time order, using a specific verb ('返回') and resource ('检验面板'). It also differentiates behavior based on the caller parameter, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_lab_trend.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool (to retrieve all lab panels) and specifies a conditional behavior for 'parent_assistant' callers. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic usage decisions.

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