方剂配伍禁忌检查

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the action (checking compatibility) and the specific contraindication types, but does not describe the return format, error handling, or whether it is read-only. The tool appears to be a query tool, but missing behavioral details.

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—one sentence stating the purpose and a brief input instruction. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the key action.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It lacks specification of return values, but the essential functionality is clear. Minor gap could be filled with output description.

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 coverage is 100% with a description for the 'herbs' parameter. The description adds an example but does not significantly extend the meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 checks compatibility contraindications between two or more Chinese herbs, specifically mentioning '十八反、十九畏' (eighteen antagonisms, nineteen incompatibilities). It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_herbs or search_formulas by focusing on interaction checking.

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 implies usage for checking herb compatibility, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_herbs for general herb info). No guidance on prerequisites or when not to use it is provided.

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