关联时间轴节点资料

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

No annotations are provided, leaving the description to carry the full burden. However, it lacks behavioral details such as whether linking is additive or overwrites existing associations, error handling when the eventId does not exist, or any side effects (e.g., data mutation). The description only states the action without transparency about outcomes or constraints.

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 of 24 Chinese characters, efficiently conveying the core action. Every word contributes to the meaning. There is no extraneous information, making it very concise and appropriately structured.

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 low complexity of the tool (simple linking action), the description is too minimal. It does not cover error scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., existing records and timeline node), or the outcome of the action. Without output schema or additional context, the agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool reliably.

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 maps the parameter types (documentIds, treatmentIds, medicationIds) to the record types mentioned, but does not explain the format or constraints of the IDs, nor does it clarify that eventId refers to the timeline node. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the lack of any schema description or additional detail leaves meaning ambiguous.

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 ('关联', to link) and the resources ('报告、治疗记录或用药记录' to '已有病情时间轴节点'). It specifies what types of records can be linked, making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like health_timeline_add, which might cause confusion for an agent deciding between creating a node and linking records.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the timeline node must already exist) or when not to use it (e.g., if the node needs to be created first with health_timeline_add). Without such context, an agent may misuse the tool.

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