研究趋势分析

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only describes what the tool analyzes (growth rate, peaks, keywords) but does not state whether it is read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The lack of transparency about potential constraints or behaviors is a significant gap.

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 that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, it could be slightly expanded to include usage guidance without becoming verbose.

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 that an output schema exists (as stated in context), the description does not need to explain return values. However, the description lacks explanations of how parameters like sources or granularity affect the output, and it offers no guidance on interpretation. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so each parameter's purpose is already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain how topic or sources influence the analysis). Baseline score of 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 that the tool analyzes trends of a specific topic over time, including growth rate, peaks, and keyword analysis. It uses specific verbs and resources ('分析主题随时间的变化趋势') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_papers and fetch_latest by focusing on trend analysis rather than paper retrieval.

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 is provided on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or situations where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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