consent_opschedule

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields (排程日期, 手術名稱, 主刀醫師, 預定時間), which is useful, but provides no information about authentication requirements, potential errors, or side effects. This is adequate but with clear 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 extremely concise, front-loading the purpose and then listing return fields. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the many sibling schedule tools, this description is too sparse. It does not explain how this tool relates to the consent system, what the parameters mean, or how it differs from similar tools like patient_op_schedule or surgery_schedule_detail. The low parameter documentation and lack of usage guidance make it incomplete.

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 does not explain the three parameters (eip_id, eip_password, hisno). The schema only provides bare titles, not semantic meaning. The description fails to compensate for this lack of parameter documentation.

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 '查詢病人手術排程' (query patient surgery schedule) with a specific verb and resource, and adds '(同意書系統)' (consent system) to distinguish from generic schedule tools like patient_op_schedule. This differentiates it from siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The parenthetical '同意書系統' implies a specific context, but it does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent without adequate decision support.

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