gangtise_strategy_list

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose pagination behavior (though fetchAll parameter exists), rate limits, or default size. It also doesn't mention what happens on empty results or invalid filters. For a tool with 15 parameters, more disclosure is needed.

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 sentence, but opens with a date-context reminder that is more suitable for system instructions than tool description. It is concise but includes extraneous information that could confuse agents expecting pure functionality.

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?

With 15 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover pagination, default size, response format, or filter interdependencies. The brief description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 33%, and the tool description adds no parameter details beyond listing filter categories (e.g., 研究方向, 机构). Parameters like from, permission, objectList (with enum values in schema but not described in description) are left for the agent to infer. The description does not compensate for the schema coverage gap.

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 '查询策略会日程列表' (query strategy meeting schedule list), specifying the verb (查询) and resource (策略会日程列表). It distinguishes from sibling tools like gangtise_announcement_list or gangtise_roadshow_list by targeting strategy meetings specifically.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. With many sibling listing tools (e.g., gangtise_foreign_report_list, gangtise_opinion_list), the agent lacks context for selection. The description implies filtering but does not state prerequisites or exclusions.

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