analyze_relationships

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

由于没有任何注释，描述需完全承担行为透明度的责任，但描述仅是一句概括，未说明分析的具体过程、所需的输入条件、返回结果的性质，也未提及是否受限于某些前提（如需要对方命盘）。

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?

描述为一句简洁的中文句子，直接点明核心功能，没有冗余语句，信息集中。虽然较为简短，但作为工具用途的概括来说尚可。

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?

该工具具有4个参数、枚举类型和多个兄弟工具，且无输出schema和注释，描述仅一句概述，未能说明分析结果的返回形式、何时需要提供对方命盘ID、各关系类型的区别，以及与其他分析工具的差异，信息严重不足。

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?

输入schema的description覆盖了所有参数，且说明清晰，描述本身没有为参数添加额外语义。根据规则，当schema覆盖率高时，基线为3分。

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?

描述明确说明该工具用于分析人际关系，并列举了家庭、朋友、同事等示例，具有明确的动词和资源。但没有与兄弟工具（如analyze_compatibility）进行显式区分，因此未达到最高分。

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?

描述中未提供任何关于何时使用此工具、何时使用其他工具（如analyze_compatibility）的指导，也没有提及任何替代方案或前置条件。

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