get_intake

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the meaning of `submitted: false` and characterizes `doctor_brief` as a concise, ready-to-read paragraph. This goes beyond a bare 'retrieve' statement, though it does not cover error cases or explicit read-only confirmation. It adds meaningful behavioral context without contradicting any annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by two explanatory paragraphs that add valuable detail, and ends with a practical example. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff. The structure flows logically from purpose to behavioral nuance to usage.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description is nearly complete. It explains key return behavior (`submitted: false`), the nature of `doctor_brief`, and names the associated `submit_intake` tool. It does not cover error handling or potential exceptions, but for a straightforward retrieval tool with an output schema, it covers the essential context sufficiently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a concrete example (`get_intake(appointment_id=12)`) and mentions 'for an appointment', which helps clarify that `appointment_id` refers to the appointment's identifier. However, it does not elaborate on the parameter's constraints or format. The example is a minimal compensation; the description adds some meaning but not extensive semantics.

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 starts with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieve the intake form for an appointment, plus a ready-to-read doctor brief.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like submit_intake, which is the write counterpart. The added detail about the doctor brief further clarifies the tool's unique output.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: it explains the `submitted: false` return value is 'your cue to collect one with submit_intake', explicitly naming an alternative and the condition for using it. It also instructs on how to use the output ('read that to the doctor'), giving practical usage context beyond mere retrieval.

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