入库病历/报告资料

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

The description adds encryption context and the source of structured data (OCR/LLM), but does not disclose mutation behavior, idempotency, error handling, or other typical behavioral traits. With no annotations, more transparency is expected.

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 concise sentence that covers the core functionality without redundant words. It could be slightly more structured, but is efficient.

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 8 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks crucial details on parameter usage, output behavior, and integration with sibling tools. It is insufficient for a complete understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 8 parameters, the description provides no explanations for any parameter meanings (e.g., dataUri, dataBase64, structuredRecord). It only vaguely references structured results without mapping to parameters.

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 encrypts and saves original medical record files on the server and saves structured parsing results from external OCR/LLM, differentiating it from sibling tools like health_document_export and health_document_get by its ingest-and-store behavior.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or contrast with sibling tools like health_document_export or health_document_get.

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