feegow_create_medical_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the write nature (ESCRITA, alters data) and the required environment variable, plus HTTP method and path. But it lacks details on idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on failure. Minimal transparency for a creation tool.

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 (two sentences plus a note) and front-loaded with the main action. The note about the path issue is useful but slightly distracts; still efficient overall.

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?

No output schema, so the description should hint at return values, but it does not. It covers the creation action well but omits what the agent can expect in response (e.g., created ID). Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete.

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 good parameter descriptions. The description adds context that the file is base64 and the appointment ID, but does not significantly extend beyond the schema. Baseline score applies.

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 creates a medical report with base64 content, using specific verbs (Registra) and resource (laudo médico). It distinguishes from retrieval tool (feegow_get_medical_report) implicitly but does not explicitly differentiate among sibling tools.

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 includes contextual notes about a path issue and write permission requirement (ESCRITA, FEEGOW_ALLOW_WRITES=true). However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like feegow_upload_patient_file, nor does it provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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