feegow_medical_record_timeline

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

The description mentions 'HTTP GET', implying read-only behavior, but with no annotations and no further behavioral details (e.g., authentication, rate limits, data scope), it falls short. The burden is on the description since annotations are absent.

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 extremely concise, but at the expense of clarity and completeness. It is appropriately front-loaded but omits critical information, making it barely adequate.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, and the presence of two parameters (including a generic 'query' object), the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or required inputs.

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?

Only one of two parameters ('query') has a schema description; 'paciente_id' lacks any description. The tool description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, and with 50% coverage, the description fails to compensate.

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 action ('retorna') and resource ('timeline do prontuário de um paciente'), and includes the HTTP method for extra clarity. However, it does not differentiate from other patient-related tools like feegow_list_patients or feegow_search_patient, though no sibling has an identical purpose.

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 any prerequisites or conditions. The description merely states what it does without context on appropriate usage.

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