analyze_pin_trends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. 'Analyze' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state safety, side effects, or any constraints on time_range or sentiment analysis. It only promises statistics and insights without detail.

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 concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. It is front-loaded and contains no filler, though it might be too sparse to be fully helpful.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal context. It does not specify what statistics or insights are returned, how time_range affects results, or why a user would choose this over similar tools. The sibling context suggests many overlapping analysis tools, making this incomplete.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (time_range in hours, include_sentiment_analysis as a boolean), giving 100% coverage. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond this, so a 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 states the tool analyzes trends ('分析沸点趋势') and provides detailed statistics and insights, which is a clear verb-resource pairing. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like analyze_trends or get_simple_trends, which may cover similar functionality.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, exclusions, or distinctions from other trend analysis tools in the sibling set.

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