list_patients

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists 'simulated' patients and enumerates output fields, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. For a simple list operation, this is minimally adequate, but it omits potential behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, or data source. The term '模拟' adds important context about the data being synthetic, which is helpful.

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 front-loads the action ('List all simulated pediatric patients') and immediately lists the specific output fields. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential purpose and the return fields. It does not need to detail return values because the output schema provides that structure. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret the result, though it could benefit from a brief alternative-reference for siblings.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline per rubric is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter details, and the output field list is not directly related to parameter semantics. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description does not need to compensate for missing schema info, and it does not introduce any confusion.

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 a specific action: '列出全部模拟患儿' (list all simulated pediatric patients), enumerating the exact fields returned (ID, name, age, CKD stage, dialysis modality, diet pattern). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_patient_profile (which fetches a single patient) and list_meal_plans (which lists meal plans), leaving no ambiguity about its purpose.

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 a comprehensive list of all patients, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not say 'for a single patient's details, use get_patient_profile' or mention any limitations (e.g., no filtering). The usage context is clear from the verb and scope, but without explicit cross-references, the agent may not know when to choose this over sibling tools.

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