openemr-mcp

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable behavioral claim 'Evidence-linked, no hallucination' addressing AI reliability concerns. However, fails to disclose whether 'Generate' implies a read-only operation or persists a document to the EMR, and omits permission or data privacy considerations.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core function, followed by reliability assurance. Every word earns its place; colon-delimited list efficiently enumerates output components without verbosity.

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?

Adequate for a 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema. Describes what the brief contains sufficiently. However, given clinical context and lack of annotations, gaps remain regarding side effects, data persistence, and authentication requirements.

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 100%, with 'patient_id' and 'window_months' fully documented. Description does not mention parameters explicitly, but baseline 3 is appropriate when schema carries full load. No additional semantic constraints or format details added.

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?

Excellent specificity with verb 'Generate' and clear resource 'pre-visit clinical brief.' Explicitly enumerates outputs (top risks, medication safety, care gaps, suggested agenda) and distinguishes from sibling data-retrieval tools (medication_list, vital_trends) by positioning as a synthetic preparation/agenda tool.

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?

Provides clear temporal context ('pre-visit') indicating when to invoke. However, lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like 'health_trajectory' or 'medication_list' for when a full brief isn't needed, and doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., patient must exist).

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