patient_consult_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It lists return fields and mentions the linkage to patient_consult_note, which provides useful behavioral context. However, it does not discuss authentication, result scope, ordering, or side effects, leaving 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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and logically structured with Returns and Note sections. Every sentence adds value with 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?

The tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides return fields and a linkage hint but omits parameter meaning, authentication context, and list behavior (e.g., ordering, pagination). This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 eip_id, eip_password, or hisno at all. The description completely fails to compensate for the 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 '取得病人會診清單' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (patient consultation list). It distinguishes itself from the sibling patient_consult_note by implicitly focusing on the list, but it does not explicitly contrast with other list tools.

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 note that caseno and oseq can be used in patient_consult_note implies a workflow for fetching details, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is only implied.

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