fanqie_trend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the core behavior and the data prerequisite, and it lists the kind of differences computed. However, it does not explain what happens when fewer than two snapshots exist, whether the operation is read-only, or how results are structured.

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?

Two short, dense sentences. The purpose and the key prerequisite are both front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 description gives the high-level output categories and one prerequisite, but with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves open how results are formatted, how errors are surfaced, and how parameters map to the snapshot selection. Adequate for a simple diff tool, but not complete.

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 only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It never explains the meaning or role of 'top', 'rank', or 'channel' beyond the schema's sparse definitions, leaving two enum parameters with no added semantic guidance. The phrase '同一榜单' hints at snapshot identity but does not clarify how rank/channel select that snapshot.

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 ('对比') and a clear resource ('同一榜单最新两份快照') and lists the concrete outputs: new entries, dropped entries, rank changes, read growth. It is clear and meaningful, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like fanqie_ranks.

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 gives a clear context for use — comparing the latest two snapshots of the same ranking to detect trends — and explicitly states the precondition that at least two snapshots must exist under data/. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide.

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