get_clinical_sop

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (complete SOP, three views, evidence basis) but does not mention any side effects, permissions, or edge-case behavior. This is adequate for a query tool but lacks deeper behavioral context such as error handling or data scope.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key features. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. The description covers the essential aspects: the object (SOP for warning rules), the views (doctor/nursing/parent), and evidence basis. It lacks explicit usage guidance, but the schema covers blank-rule_id behavior, making it sufficiently complete.

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 description already thoroughly covers the only parameter rule_id, including its default and blank behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 queries the complete clinical SOP corresponding to warning rules, including doctor/nursing/parent views and evidence basis. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like evaluate_risk_rules and trigger_warning_event.

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?

While no explicit alternatives are named, the description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving SOPs for warning rules, which is distinct from the other sibling tools. The schema description also clarifies behavior when rule_id is blank. No exclusions are provided, but the context is clear enough.

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