Generate a Kitchin cycle (inventory cycle) analysis chart to visualize economic fluctuations and identify cyclical turning points in inventory data.
生成基钦周期(库存周期)分析图
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| output_path | No | kitchin_cycle.png |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says a chart is generated; it does not disclose side effects, file-writing behavior, data sources, whether it is read-only, or what the chart contains. The output_path parameter hints at file output, but the description never confirms it.
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 short sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it provides no supporting structure or additional context, so it is concise but slightly underspecified.
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?
For a tool with two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and many closely related siblings, this description is not complete enough. An agent still needs to guess parameter meaning, output behavior, and when to choose this over similar cycle/chart tools. The presence of an output schema helps but is not referenced or leveraged.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'limit' and 'output_path' parameters. It does not explain what 'limit' limits or what format/path 'output_path' expects, leaving the agent unable to infer parameter semantics.
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 a specific verb ('生成' = generate), a specific resource ('基钦周期' = Kitchin cycle), and the output type ('分析图' = analysis chart). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling cycle tools such as chart_kondratiev_cycle, chart_juglar_cycle, and data_kitchin.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kitchin_cycle, data_kitchin, or the other chart_*_cycle tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection conditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.