list_fortune_systems

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond this, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or output format details. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal value given the annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose with examples. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no redundant or unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's low complexity (one optional parameter), rich annotations covering safety and idempotency, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool does, though it could benefit from more usage guidance or output details. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, with the parameter 'detailed' fully documented in the schema as a boolean for outputting more information. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of what 'detailed' includes. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb '列出' (list) and the resource '所有可用的命理系统' (all available fortune-telling systems), with examples like '紫微斗数、八字、占星等' (Ziwei Doushu, Bazi, astrology, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on listing systems rather than analyzing or getting charts/fortune, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. This is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 implies usage when needing to see available systems, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_bazi_element' or 'get_ziwei_chart'. It doesn't state prerequisites, exclusions, or named alternatives, leaving usage context inferred rather than clearly defined.

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