knowledge_card

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the return action without mentioning side effects, error handling, or the fact that the content is general education rather than personalized advice. This is a significant gap for a tool lacking structured annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource, followed by a parenthetical list of valid topics. It is concise and omits any unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and the only parameter's valid values. However, it does not explicitly mention that the content is educational rather than patient-specific, which could affect an agent's decision-making alongside sibling tools. Overall, it is fairly complete for its simplicity.

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 schema defines 'topic' as a plain string with no enum, but the description compensates fully by explicitly listing the acceptable topic values. This gives complete semantic meaning beyond the schema, making it clear exactly what input is expected.

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 returns pediatric CKD nutrition management knowledge cards, with a specific verb and resource. The list of selectable topics (限钾/限磷/限钠/蛋白/能量/液体/嘌呤/低蛋白淀粉) further defines its scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle patient-specific data.

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 use for retrieving educational nutrition cards and lists the topic options, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like compute_nutrition_targets or search_food. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions, so usage context is only inferred.

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