patient_op_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that only completed surgeries are returned, specifies the return fields (手術日期, 手術日期_iso, 手術名稱, 主刀醫師), and provides an integration hint with patient_op_note. While it doesn't mention authentication or error conditions, for a read-only query tool this is a solid level of transparency.

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 and largely well-structured, with the purpose stated first and a clear note about an alternative tool. There is minor redundancy between the first two sentences ('取得病人已完成的手術紀錄清單' and '查詢過去已執行完成的手術'), but overall it is efficient and easy to parse.

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-retrieval tool, the description covers the essential aspects: it defines the scope (past completed surgeries), lists the return fields, and provides a cross-reference to patient_op_note. However, it does not explain the required parameters or mention any ordering/filtering behavior, leaving slight room for ambiguity. Still, the core contextual information is present.

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 input schema has three required parameters (eip_id, eip_password, hisno) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain any of these parameters, leaving the agent to infer that eip_id/eip_password are credentials and hisno is a patient identifier. With 0% schema coverage and no param explanation, this is a significant gap.

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 the tool's purpose: '取得病人已完成的手術紀錄清單' (get the list of completed surgical records for a patient). It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool patient_op_schedule by noting that future scheduled surgeries should use that tool instead.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states when to use this tool (for past completed surgeries) and when not to use it (for future scheduled surgeries, use patient_op_schedule). It also adds a practical note about using the returned '手術日期_iso' field directly with patient_op_note, which is helpful cross-tool guidance.

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