intelligent_interpretation

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

With no annotations, the description must explain behavioral traits itself. It only delivers a high-level promise of AI-powered analysis, without disclosing whether the operation is read-only, what format the analysis takes, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to predict the tool's behavior.

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 filler words, earning high marks for brevity. While concise, it omits necessary detail for a tool with 4 parameters and nested objects, but the conciseness dimension rewards efficiency.

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?

The tool has a complex required 'chart' object and no output schema, so the description should clarify what analysis is produced and how to interpret the response. It does not, and it also fails to address the close relationship with sibling interpretation tools, making the description contextually incomplete.

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?

All four parameters (chart, lifeStage, focusAreas, currentConcerns) have detailed descriptions in the schema, including enums for lifeStage and focusAreas. The description adds no additional semantic context, so it relies entirely on the schema to convey parameter meaning.

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 'AI智能解盘' (AI intelligent interpretation) and '个性化深度命盘解析' (personalized in-depth destiny chart analysis), clearly identifying the tool as an interpretation tool for natal charts. However, it offers no differentiation from the sibling tool 'interpret_chart', so it cannot help an agent choose among overlapping options.

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 phrase '个性化深度' implies the tool is suited for personalized, deep analysis, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like 'analyze_fortune' or 'interpret_chart'. There is no guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving usage context ambiguous.

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