bazi_generate_chart

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '生成八字命盘' only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it has rate limits, what format the output takes, or any error conditions. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise at just four Chinese characters ('生成八字命盘'), which directly states the tool's function with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it communicates and is front-loaded with the essential information. Every character earns its place.

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's complexity (4 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what a Bazi chart is for users unfamiliar with Chinese metaphysics, doesn't describe the output format, and provides no behavioral context. For a tool that likely produces complex astrological calculations, more explanatory context would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '生成八字命盘' (Generate Bazi chart) clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('生成' - generate) and resource ('八字命盘' - Bazi chart). However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its siblings like 'bazi_analyze' or 'bazi_forecast' - all could involve Bazi chart generation or analysis. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'bazi_analyze' and 'bazi_forecast' that likely work with Bazi charts, there's no indication whether this tool generates the foundational chart while others analyze it, or whether they overlap. No explicit when/when-not instructions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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