导出原始病历/报告文件

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that files are encrypted on the server and returned as base64, which adds value. However, it does not mention important behaviors like file size limits (maxBytes parameter) or permission requirements, making transparency adequate but not comprehensive.

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 that efficiently states the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly restructured to separate the uniqueness claim from the main action, but overall it is concise and not verbose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters lacking descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the maxBytes parameter, what happens if the file exceeds it, the format of documentId, or error scenarios. The output format (base64) is hinted but not explicitly stated as the return value.

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 0%, meaning the schema lacks parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no information about the parameters (documentId, maxBytes) beyond what the schema provides (type, default). This is a significant gap; the description should at least explain the purpose of each parameter.

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 verb '导出' (export), resource '原始病历/报告文件' (original medical record/report files), and specifies the output format (base64) and encryption. It distinguishes from sibling tools by claiming it is the only one returning original file content.

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 implies this tool should be used when needing the original file content (unique among siblings). It does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide alternative tool names, but the context of being the only one for original content gives clear guidance.

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