ArcFlow Destiny Matrix

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context about the output: 'shared core numbers plus text interpretations for relationship dynamics, finances, conflict points, children, and growth areas.' This goes beyond annotations, but does not contradict them.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First provides purpose and method, second provides usage guidance. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 straightforward parameter set and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It covers the core purpose, required inputs, and output nature, making it fully actionable.

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 coverage is 100%, fully describing all parameters with formats and enum. The description only summarizes 'from their dates of birth' without adding new semantic info beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the verb 'calculate' and resource 'relationship compatibility between two people' using the Destiny Matrix method. It distinguishes from the sibling 'calculate_matrix' which is likely for a single person, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this when a user asks how compatible two people are, or wants a numerology compatibility reading.' It does not explicitly name alternatives but the context implies not to use for single matrices. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, so not a 5.

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

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds that the tool returns text interpretations, which is helpful. It does not mention any potential limitations or edge cases, but the core behavior (computation, no mutation) is clear.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence describes action and output, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format (core numbers with interpretations) and covers the needed context. The agent can understand what the tool returns without additional documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds context by mentioning the output includes core numbers 1-22 and categories like personality, talents, etc. This goes beyond the schema descriptions which only specify format and language. The description helps the agent understand what the returned data represents.

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 calculates a Destiny Matrix from a date of birth and returns structured numerology readings. It uses specific verbs ('calculate', 'returns') and resource ('Destiny Matrix'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'calculate_compatibility' which likely deals with two dates.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when a user asks to compute, build, or interpret a destiny matrix' which provides clear context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the sibling tool name implies an alternative for compatibility, so guidance is adequate.

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