skill_zhuojian

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the cost (¥0.50/call) and methodology (evidence chains), but does not clarify if the tool is read-only or destructive, nor does it describe any side effects or limitations.

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 line that includes purpose, methodology, and pricing. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the structure could be clearer (e.g., separate sentences).

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns, but it does not. It also lacks detail on how to craft effective queries. For a single-parameter tool, the description is too abstract to fully guide the agent.

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% for the single parameter 'query', which is described as 'user input for this skill'. The tool description adds no further detail about how to formulate the query, so it meets the baseline but offers no extra value.

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 clearly identifies it as a deep analysis tool ('深度分析工具') that goes beneath surface narratives to find truth using evidence chains. This communicates the core function well, but it does not differentiate from sibling analysis tools like skill_bianzhen.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor any mention of alternatives. The description only states its analytic philosophy, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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