新增治疗记录

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or pagination behavior. It only states the general action without additional context.

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, but it lacks necessary details. While brevity is good, it comes at the cost of providing comprehensive information, resulting in a balanced score.

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 has 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain parameter semantics, required fields, or return values, leaving the agent without sufficient context for proper invocation.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema; it does not explain any of the 11 parameters (e.g., name, notes, doctor). With 0% schema description coverage, the burden is on the description to clarify fields, which it fails to do.

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 '记录' (record) and the resource '治疗信息' (treatment information), and provides specific examples of treatment types (surgery, operation, radiotherapy, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like health_medication_add or health_treatment_list.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as health_medication_add or health_treatment_list. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context for selecting this tool over others.

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