bazi

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 adds some context by specifying the return format (YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss) with an example, which helps clarify output behavior. However, it doesn't cover other important traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, leaving significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose followed by output format details and an example. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from output details more clearly.

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 complexity (converting Bazi to Gregorian times), lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the purpose and output format but misses details on parameter semantics, error cases, and behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, more completeness is needed for a tool performing a non-trivial conversion.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter (bazi) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no details about the parameter. The description doesn't add any semantic information about the 'bazi' parameter, such as what it represents, its format, or examples. Since there's only one parameter and no schema documentation, the baseline is 3, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '根据八字获取公历时间列表' (Get Gregorian calendar time list based on Bazi). It specifies the verb ('获取' - get) and resource ('公历时间列表' - Gregorian calendar time list), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getBaziDetail or getChineseCalendar, which prevents a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools (getBaziDetail, getChineseCalendar) or explain scenarios where this tool is preferred. Usage is implied by the purpose statement but lacks explicit context or exclusions.

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