analyze_compatibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does without mentioning what the output looks like, whether it performs any side effects, or how the analysisDepth parameter affects behavior. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or irreversible, though 'analyze' implies a read operation.

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, extremely concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core function clearly. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, though this is more a completeness issue than conciseness – the sentence structure itself is efficient.

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 takes two complex nested chart objects and has an analysisDepth parameter, the description is incomplete. There is no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of what the analysis will provide (e.g., a score, a report, explanations). It also does not explain the difference between 'basic' and 'comprehensive' depth. The description is minimal even for a straightforward analysis tool.

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 all three parameters (chart1, chart2, analysisDepth) described. The description adds slight clarity by specifying '两人的' (two people's) charts, reinforcing what chart1 and chart2 represent, but it does not provide additional syntax, format, or deeper meaning beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3.

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: '合婚分析' (marriage compatibility analysis) and '分析两人的紫微斗数命盘匹配度' (analyze the compatibility of two people's Zi Wei Dou Shu charts). It specifies the action (analyze) and resource (chart compatibility), distinguishing it from generic chart generation or interpretation tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'analyze_relationships', which could be seen as overlapping.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'analyze_relationships' or other analysis tools. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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