patient_scaned_note

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

The verb '取得' and the noun '清單' minimally indicate a read-only list operation. However, with no annotations, the description fails to disclose authentication expectations, pagination, return structure, or error behavior.

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 short sentence with no fluff, but it is excessively terse and reads more like a label than a functional description. It omits essential context that should accompany the purpose statement.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain return values, authentication flow, or error cases. For a tool requiring credentials, this is incomplete, though the basic purpose statement provides a minimal baseline.

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 hints that '科別' may map to the tdept parameter (department). The required eip_id and eip_password parameters are completely unexplained, leaving credential semantics ambiguous.

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 uses the verb '取得' (get) and the resource '科別掃描病歷清單' (department scanned medical record list), clearly stating a list-retrieval purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like patient_opd_note or patient_op_list, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The department scope ('科別') is implied but not framed as a selection criterion.

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