gangtise_hot_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description mentions the tool is AI-generated and supports briefing versions, but it does not indicate whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor does it address pagination, performance (fetchAll is a param but not explained), or data freshness. The description lacks sufficient behavioral transparency for an autonomous agent.

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 concise with two sentences: a date context instruction followed by the core function. The structure is logical, placing context first. However, the date instruction is lengthy and could be streamlined or moved to parameter descriptions. No unnecessary words, but the date block slightly distracts from the main purpose.

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 has 8 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers the basic purpose and briefing versions but does not describe the output format (e.g., fields in each briefing item, like title, summary, date). The date context handling is a plus, but without output schema or return value hints, the description is not fully complete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 description coverage is 63%, with some parameters like categoryList and startDate having descriptions. The description lists briefing versions (早报, 午报, etc.) which correspond to categoryList enum values, adding slight contextual meaning. However, for parameters like withRelatedSecurities and withCloseReading, neither the schema nor the description explains their purpose. The description does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the tool queries AI-generated hot topic briefing lists and supports multiple versions like morning, noon, afternoon flash, and evening. The verb '查询' (query) and resource '热点话题简报列表' are specific, and the name 'gangtise_hot_topic' aligns well. Among many sibling tools focused on different data types (announcements, financials, research), this one is distinctively for hot topic briefings.

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 a date context instruction ('当前日期 2026-05-27...') that guides how to interpret relative dates. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., gangtise_research_list or gangtise_summary_list), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The date handling is useful but incomplete as a usage guideline.

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