log_communication

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

No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the action of logging without mentioning side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The external link may compensate, but description alone is insufficient.

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?

Description is well-structured with a main line, an external link, and a bullet list for common values. It is slightly lengthy but efficient, with no 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?

Given an output schema exists, description need not explain return values, but it lacks prerequisites (e.g., patient existence) and does not clarify what happens on success or failure. External documentation partially fills gaps, but description is incomplete on its own.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It provides integer code mappings for comm_type, comm_mode, and sent_or_received, adding value over schema. However, it does not clarify required parameters patnum, comm_datetime, and note beyond basic labels.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'log' and the resource 'communication to patient chart', specifying types like phone call, email, or message. It distinguishes from sibling tools (appointments, patients, procedures) by focusing on communication logging.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites. While it provides a link to external documentation, the description itself lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.

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