fortune_coder

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 fails to disclose behavioral traits such as handling invalid languages, rate limits, or the output format. The description is minimal and does not reveal what happens after input.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded. However, it could be more structured by explicitly stating the output format or usage conditions.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., formatted text with colors or icons) or provide any usage context, leaving the agent guessing.

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 has 100% coverage with a description for the 'language' parameter. The tool description adds an example list ('如 Python、JavaScript、Rust'), providing slight additional context beyond the schema.

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 purpose: '程序员黄历 — 输入编程语言，看今天的宜忌、代码气运和幸运语言' translates to 'Programmer's almanac — enter a programming language, see today's auspiciousness, code luck, and lucky language'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which likely deal with other fortune domains (如 fortune_bazi for eight characters, fortune_name for names).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of being a programmer's almanac implies it is for programming-related fortunes. Sibling names provide clues, but no explicit guidance.

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