patient_ad_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It lists the return fields (住院日期, 住院日期_iso, 科別, caseno, adidate) and explains the linkage to patient_ad_note. However, it does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential pagination, ordering, or scope limitations, which are relevant for a list tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The Returns and Note sections are structured for easy scanning, and every sentence contributes useful information without 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?

For a list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description comes partially complete: it lists output columns and cross-references patient_ad_note. It lacks explicit clarification of key input semantics (e.g., what hisno represents) and behavioral details like order or read-only nature, leaving some gaps for an agent to resolve.

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 adds no meaning to the parameters (eip_id, eip_password, hisno). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (credentials and a hospital number), but the description fails to clarify the format or role of hisno, which is important for correct invocation.

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 opens with '取得病人住院清單' (get patient admission list), a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool patient_ad_note by stating that the returned caseno and 住院日期_iso can be used to obtain admission details via patient_ad_note.

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 provides clear context for usage: it is the list-level tool whose output feeds into patient_ad_note for details. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the note about downstream usage gives actionable guidance.

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