列出过敏记录

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the return of records, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or if there are any side effects. The minimal description leaves the agent uncertain about preconditions and consequences.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded, immediately stating the purpose.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what is returned, but it does not specify whether all records are returned or if there is any default ordering or pagination. For a list operation, this is a minor gap, making it barely complete.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds meaning by clarifying the return value (saved records). It does not need to add parameter details since none exist.

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 returns saved allergy/intolerance records. The verb '返回' (returns) and the resource '过敏/不耐受记录' (allergy/intolerance records) are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like health_allergy_upsert (which modifies) and health_medication_list (different resource).

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. For example, it doesn't explain that this tool lists all records without filtering, or when to use health_allergy_upsert for modification. The description lacks explicit context on usage scenarios.

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