indicator_volatility_regime_direct

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It explains the logic (BB bandwidth percentile) but fails to disclose output format (e.g., string, numeric, or object), return structure, side effects, or data dependencies. Does not indicate whether it's read-only or requires authentication.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load purpose and method. No superfluous text; efficiently communicates key information.

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?

Despite having 5 parameters and no output schema, description omits critical details like return value, example interpretation, and result structure. Cannot guide an agent on how to process the output.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool classifies volatility regime (squeeze/expansion) based on BB bandwidth historical percentile. It specifies the verb '判断' (determine) and resource '波动率状态' (volatility regime). The '直连版' (direct version) in name differentiates from sibling 'indicator_volatility_regime'.

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?

Mentions '辅助仓位管理' (assist position management) providing context, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus other tools. Does not compare to sibling indicators like ATR or BBands, nor explain when to choose direct vs non-direct version.

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