bazi_forecast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or how results are structured (e.g., textual predictions vs. data). For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is inadequate.

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, efficient phrase ('预测未来运势') that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple declaration, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool has 5 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the forecast output looks like, how to interpret results, or the tool's scope relative to siblings. For a forecasting tool with multiple aspects and resolution options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying forecasting, which is already evident from the tool name and schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with extra context like example usage or parameter interactions.

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 '预测未来运势' (predict future fortune) states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what resource it operates on and how it differs from siblings. It mentions 'future fortune' which suggests forecasting, but doesn't specify it's for BaZi (八字) charts or differentiate from tools like 'destiny_consult' or 'combined_analysis' that might also provide fortune-related insights.

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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a chart from 'bazi_generate_chart'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'bazi_analyze' or 'destiny_consult', leaving the agent to infer usage context from tool names alone.

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