chart_kondratiev_cycle

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

没有annotations，描述需承担更多责任。它披露了会生成图表、包含PCA指数和主周期标注、保存为PNG以及可选方法，但未说明是否覆盖已有输出文件、数据来源、网络/缓存依赖或运行行为。

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?

一句话内前置了核心操作和输出格式，随后列出可选方法，没有冗余内容。每个信息点都服务于工具选择与调用。

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?

对于生成图表的低复杂度工具，描述已覆盖用途、输出格式、图表内容和可选方法，且schema提供了全部参数细节、默认值和输出schema。缺少的覆盖行为和数据源说明不算关键缺口。

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?

输入schema覆盖率为100%，method、focus_from、output_path均有默认值和说明。描述中的方法选项只是重复schema信息，没有在schema之外增加参数语义，因此按基准3分评定。

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?

描述明确给出了具体动词和资源：生成康波周期分析图并保存为PNG，还说明了图的内容（PCA合成指数+主周期标注）。这使其与data_kondratiev等纯数据工具以及chart_kitchin_cycle等其他周期图工具清晰区分。

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?

描述隐含了使用场景：需要生成康波周期图表时使用。但没有明确说明何时应该选择本工具而非data_kondratiev、kondratiev_cycle或其他chart_*系列工具，也没有说明pca/wavelet/bandpass方法各自适用的情形。

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