kondratiev_cycle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful detail about the default method, the 8-spectrum plus phase-mapping approach, the Morlet wavelet power spectrum, and the 40-60 year bandpass filter. This gives an agent a concrete sense of how the tool computes the phase, though it does not describe the output format or potential data dependencies—partially mitigated by the presence of an output schema.

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 that front-loads the main purpose and then efficiently enumerates the method options with parenthetical technical details. No words are wasted, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 is fairly complex with three distinct computational methods, and the description covers the core purpose and method selection. Because an output schema exists, the absence of return-value explanation is acceptable. However, it does not explain the tradeoffs between methods or note that the tool only assesses the current phase with no explicit date parameter, leaving some contextual gaps.

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 'method' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining what each method actually does (pca default with 8-spectrum and phase mapping, wavelet with Morlet power spectrum, bandpass with 40-60 year filtering), enabling more informed parameter selection beyond the schema's simple enum-like description.

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 action ('判断当前长波周期阶段') with a clear resource (Kondratiev long-wave cycle), which distinguishes it from sibling cycle tools like kitchin_cycle, juglar_cycle, and kuznets_cycle. It also names the available computation methods, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 useful guidance on internal method selection (pca default, wavelet, bandpass) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as cycle_detect, cycle_phase, or other cycle tools. Usage context is implied by the long-wave subject matter, but no exclusions or comparisons are provided.

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