开始新增就诊人

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a chat flow but does not mention side effects, authorization requirements, return values, or how the flow progresses. Important behavioral traits for a flow-initiating tool are absent.

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 very concise (one sentence) and front-loaded. However, the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified for the tool's role in a multi-step workflow.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and any documentation of flow behavior, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot reliably determine what the tool returns, how to proceed to the next step, or what the parameter does. More context is essential for a starting tool in a sequence.

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 does not explain the single parameter 'cardType' (default '1') at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no guidance on what the parameter represents or how to use it. This is a critical gap.

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 that the tool creates a chat flow for adding a new patient, asking one field at a time. The title '开始新增就诊人' reinforces this. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'patient_add_next', but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 is the starting point of a multi-step patient addition process, and that each step handles one field. However, it does not specify when to use this tool vs. other patient tools, nor does it provide guidance on prerequisites or post-conditions.

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