analyze_fortune

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function without explaining prerequisites (e.g., chartId must exist from generate_chart), expected output format, or any limitations. No ambiguity or contradiction, but it is too thin to be transparent.

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, concise sentence that fronts the verb and resource, then specifies relevant time dimensions. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition, making it highly 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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it only states the general action. It also does not mention that a valid chartId is required or that includeMonthly defaults to false, though these are in the schema. The description leaves the agent guessing about output structure and usage context.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description in Chinese. The tool description adds some context by mentioning 大运/流年/流月, which relates to year and includeMonthly, but this is marginal beyond what the schema already conveys. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb '分析' (analyze) with a clear resource ('运势', fortune) and explicitly lists temporal dimensions like 大运 (major luck), 流年 (annual), and 流月 (monthly). This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as interpret_chart or analyze_compatibility, which focus on different aspects of divination.

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 implies usage when temporal fortune analysis is needed (yearly, monthly, major luck periods) but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or direct comparisons with sibling tools, so guidance is only implicit.

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