translate_doctor_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the two outputs (translation and question list) but does not disclose limitations such as translation accuracy, scope of generated questions, or any prerequisites for the input. This is adequate but not rich.

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 that immediately states the action and output, with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description fully captures what the tool does and what to expect. No annotations are needed given the low complexity, and the description is complete for selection and 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 input schema already has a description for the 'text' parameter ('医生诊断或医嘱原文。') that fully covers its meaning. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail beyond that, and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses specific verbs 'translate' and 'generate' applied to a defined resource (医生写的诊断/医嘱) and names a concrete output (下次复诊该问医生什么清单). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like explain_terms (individual term explanation) and interpret_lab_report (lab interpretation) by focusing on whole-note translation plus follow-up questions.

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 clearly implies when to use it: when a user has a full doctor's note and wants a translation plus a list of questions for the next visit. It provides this context clearly but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, which would warrant a 5.

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