list_mock_patients

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes the action as '列出' (list), which implies a read-only operation, and notes the mock nature of the data. However, it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, require no special permissions, or describe any limitations. This is adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 clearly communicates the tool's purpose and use case. There is no unnecessary information or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description is largely sufficient. It provides the purpose and usage context. It does not elaborate on return format, but the output schema exists, covering that. The only minor gap is not explicitly connecting the '全部' (all) in the description to the filtering capability of the scenario_type parameter, but the schema covers that.

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 covers 100% of the parameter (scenario_type), so the description itself does not need to add parameter details. The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema fully documents its purpose and allowed values. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's function: '列出模拟 HIS 中全部可用患儿档案' (list all available pediatric patient records in the mock HIS). It uses a specific verb (list) and resource (patient records), and distinguishes itself from siblings like fetch_patient_biochemical_trends or evaluate_risk_rules by focusing on patient selection for demos.

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 explicitly states the context: '用于 Demo 演示时选择研判对象' (used for selecting analysis targets during demo presentations). This implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or mention when not to use it, so it's slightly below perfect.

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