六经辨证

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a diagnostic/recommendation tool, implying a non-destructive read operation, but it does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies data, requires authentication, or has rate limits. Minimal disclosure.

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 two sentences: the first defines purpose, the second gives examples. Every sentence is necessary, front-loaded, and there is no extraneous information. It is highly concise.

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 description covers the tool's purpose and input format. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the output structure (e.g., what fields are returned). This slight gap lowers the score from 5.

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 single parameter 'symptoms' has 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds value by providing concrete examples of acceptable input formats (e.g., '发热恶寒汗出脉浮缓'), which go beyond the schema's generic description. This helps the agent understand expected input quality.

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: based on Ni Haixia's six-channel differentiation system, it determines which meridian disease corresponds to input symptoms and recommends a classical prescription. This verb+resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search formulas or herbs.

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 example inputs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the diagnostic purpose, but explicit guidance is missing.

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