行业轮动

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

无任何注解，描述承担全部行为披露责任。但描述仅陈述了工具的目标，未说明数据来源、更新频率、是否有延迟、输出结构或任何使用限制。对于无参数工具，这种不透明性会让代理对调用结果缺乏预期。

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?

描述为一句简洁、无冗余的句子，将核心方法和目标前置，没有无关内容。每个词都承载信息，结构高效。

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?

工具未提供输出schema和注解，描述是唯一的上下文。它提供了足够的意图，但未说明返回的具体内容（如行业代码、强度排序还是信号），也未明确目标市场。鉴于工具简单且无参数，这尚可接受，但仍有明显缺口。

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?

工具参数为0，根据规则基线为4。描述中提及的“行业资金流”和“涨跌幅”属于方法而非参数，无需额外语义解释。描述未提供参数相关细节，但因为没有参数，基线4适用。

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?

描述以具体动词“识别”和资源“短期强势行业”清晰说明了工具功能，并点明了方法（基于行业资金流与涨跌幅）。与兄弟工具如industry_capital_flow相比，它区分了自身是综合识别而非单一数据查询，但未明确说明输出形式（如列表还是排名），因此未达到满分。

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?

描述未提供任何关于何时使用此工具而非其他工具的指导，也未提及替代方案或排除条件。在兄弟工具包含industry_capital_flow、industry_quotes等相近工具的情况下，代理无法从描述中判断该工具的具体适用场景和选择依据。

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