gangtise_investment_logic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the output format (Markdown) but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, if it triggers a long computation, or any side effects. For a report generation tool, latency or API costs could be relevant but are omitted.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey purpose and output format without unnecessary detail. Every word contributes value.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single input, Markdown output) and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the essential purpose and output format. However, it could mention the type of investment logic (e.g., fundamental, technical) or any limitations.

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 100% (one parameter 'securityCode' with description 'A-share or Hong Kong stock code'). The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'generates an AI investment logic analysis report for a specified security and returns Markdown content.' The verb 'generate' and resource 'investment logic report for a security' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'gangtise_balance_sheet' or 'gangtise_research_list' which deal with different data types.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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