assess_pew_risk

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the input/output behavior and return format, but does not mention side effects (though unlikely), handling of null albumin, or any algorithmic details beyond the output levels.

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 front-loads the purpose and includes all essential information without waste.

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 covers the main required inputs and output, and the existence of an output schema covers return value details. However, it omits the optional albumin parameter and any nuance about the basis for risk levels, leaving a small gap.

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 only broadly mentions '3-day averages and targets' without naming specific parameters or units. The optional albumin_g_L parameter is entirely omitted, leaving it unexplained.

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 the tool as an independent PEW risk screening function, specifying the inputs (3-day averages and targets) and output (low/medium/high with rationale). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on PEW risk.

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 implies the use case: when PEW risk screening is needed based on 3-day averages vs targets. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer assess_intake_vs_target.

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