generate_chart

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action of generating a chart. It does not disclose any side effects, special requirements, output format, or potential edge cases (e.g., invalid birth time). This is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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, compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool. Every word 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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns, how it fits into the larger workflow (e.g., for subsequent interpretation), and any relevant context. It does none of these. The tool has many siblings, but the description does not position it relative to them, leaving the agent without enough context to plan a multi-step flow.

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% (all parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. This aligns with the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states the tool's function clearly: '生成紫微斗数命盘，根据出生信息排盘' which means 'Generate Zi Wei Dou Shu chart, arrange chart based on birth information.' This is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings like interpret_chart and generate_visualization, though it does not explicitly name them or delineate boundaries, so it falls short of a 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where another tool (e.g., interpret_chart) would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and context.

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