get_yogaFetch the full reference record for a named yoga (Configuration) by its slug, including its component factors, all effects and a source.url citation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | ||
| locale | No | Response language (default en). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool returns component factors, effects, and a citation, which is appropriate for a read operation. No contradictions or hidden behaviors are indicated.
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 is front-loaded with the key action and resource. It wastes no words and is easy to parse.
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 lack of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (component factors, effects, citation). For a fetch operation, it is complete enough, though additional context about what a 'yoga' is might be helpful but not necessary.
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 description adds meaning to the 'slug' parameter by stating it is used to identify the yoga. However, it does not mention the 'locale' parameter, which is described in the schema. With 50% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but is not fully comprehensive.
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 it fetches a full reference record for a named yoga by slug, including component factors, effects, and citation. It distinguishes from siblings (e.g., get_factor, search_effects) by specifying the scope and detail of the returned data.
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 for fetching a yoga record but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like lookup_combination or search_effects. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct entity or action: get_factor, get_placement, and get_yoga retrieve details for different types; lookup_combination queries specific placements; search_effects performs corpus search; list_life_domains lists domains. No overlap in purpose.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (get_factor, list_life_domains, lookup_combination, search_effects). The verbs vary appropriately by action.
With 6 tools covering listing, searching, looking up, and retrieving detailed records, the count is well-scoped for a specialized Vedic astrology reference server.
Core workflows (search, lookup, detailed retrieval) are covered. Minor gaps include no direct listing of all factors or yogas, but these can be obtained via search or lookup, so agents can work around.