fund_manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('获取基金经理信息') without mentioning whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the output might be in. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 brief with two sentences, but the structure is somewhat awkward with 'Args:' appearing in the description text rather than being handled by the schema. It's front-loaded with the purpose, but could be more polished in presentation.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information about fund managers is returned, how results are formatted, or provide any context about the data source or limitations. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explicitly documenting the single parameter 'fund_code' and its purpose ('基金代码' - fund code). This adds meaningful context beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't specify format requirements or examples beyond the default in the schema.

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 states '获取基金经理信息' (get fund manager information), which provides a clear verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('基金经理信息' - fund manager information). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'fund_detail' or 'fund_info' that might also provide fund-related information, making the purpose somewhat vague in context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools related to funds (e.g., fund_detail, fund_info, fund_asset), there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over others for accessing fund manager data.

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