gangtise_theme_tracking

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds context (daily report, morning/night edition, date constraint) but does not describe return format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. The description adds some value beyond the schema but is not rich.

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 with a date/timezone prefix. It is concise, front-loaded, and every part is necessary. No wasted words.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the basic purpose and input requirements but lacks details about the report's content, return format, or potential errors. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, with each parameter having a description. The description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., '早报或晚报版' mirrors the type parameter's enum values). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action: '获取指定主题的每日跟踪报告（早报或晚报版）', specifying the resource (daily tracking report for a theme) and distinguishing it from sibling tools like gangtise_hot_topic or gangtise_investment_logic.

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 mentions required inputs ('需传入主题 ID 和日期') but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The usage context is implied but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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