get_container

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

Annotations are absent, so the description should carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals deployment constraints and warns 'do not enter patient data' (不得输入病人资料), but it does not state whether the tool reads or mutates data, requires authorization, or has side effects. The caveats are useful for restrictions, not for understanding tool 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 text is short and its flags are neatly listed, but no sentence earns a position in terms of helping invocation-the core purpose is still missing. It reads as a set of metadata flags rather than a real tool description, so the brevity is under-separation rather than concise adequacy.

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?

Given that the tool has one required, undocumented parameter and no annotations, the description is far from complete. Even with an output schema present, an agent lacks the minimal operational understanding needed to decide to call it. The description is too vague to compensate for the context-missing tool intent.

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 required param, subscript disease, is entirely undocumented; schema coverage is 0 percent, and the description does not mention it at all. The description does not explain what disease values are expected or how the parameter is used. The warning against patient data is only a loosely related input restriction, not a parameter semantic.

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 says only 'CDC compatibility alias', which conveys neither a specific action nor a resource, and never mentions what 'get_container' does. An agent cannot tell whether this tool retrieves, creates, or transforms container-related data. It is closer to a label than a purpose statement.

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 gives restrictions and caveats such as 'decision_support_only=true', 'not_validated_for_hospital_deployment=true', and 'not_pre_submission_storage=true', but it offers no guidance on when an agent should select this tool over the many sibling tools. It does not name any alternative or specify an actual use case.

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