list_known_patients

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it lists patient IDs covered by the dataset, which implies a read-only operation. However, it doesn't detail sorting, deduplication, or pagination behavior, though the output schema may cover return format.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the action, scope, and purpose. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simplicity (0 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and use case. It doesn't need to elaborate on return values, as that is covered by 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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and by baseline for 0-parameter tools, it gets a 4.

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 '列出本 LIS 数据集覆盖的 patient_id' (list patient_ids covered by this LIS dataset), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_labs or get_critical_values by focusing on patient IDs rather than lab results.

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 includes '供联调核对' (for joint debugging/verification), which provides a clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but the purpose is evident and distinct from sibling tools.

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