tarotari

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the method ('Steps through positions and refines by bisection') and accuracy ('accurate to the minute'), which is useful. However, it does not specify the output format (e.g., list of timestamps, dates with timezones), edge cases (e.g., no aspect in range), or any prerequisites (e.g., planet_a != planet_b). For a calculation tool, this is a moderate gap.

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, no waste. The first sentence states the core purpose and lists the aspect types; the second explains the method and adds the extra applications. The essential information is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has 6 parameters, 5 required, and no output schema. The description explains the method but does not describe what the function returns (e.g., a list of timestamps, dates, or objects) or how the tz_offset_minutes parameter affects the output. It also doesn't mention what happens when no aspect occurs in the given period. These gaps leave an agent uncertain about expected results and error handling, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 100% coverage – every parameter (to, from, aspect, planet_a, planet_b, tz_offset_minutes) has a description with enums and constraints. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it only reinforces the purpose. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, a 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 opens with a specific verb ('Finds') and a clear resource ('moments when two planets form an exact angle'), listing the exact aspect types. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like planet_positions (which give positions at a time) and moon_state (which gives lunar phases) by focusing on exact timing of angular relationships.

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 when to use it: when you need exact moments (accurate to the minute) and notes that mean formulas are 'unfit' for these events. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool, but the context makes it clear this is for precise ephemeris calculations rather than approximate positions. It could be stronger by explicitly stating 'use for exact aspect times, not for general position queries'.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds a valuable non-obvious behavior: illumination and lunar day are computed from the real Sun-Moon conjunction rather than the mean synodic formula, with an explicit warning about discrepancies of hours or even a whole lunar day. This is genuinely helpful, though it leaves output format and timezone handling implicit.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core outputs, and the second explains the important calculation caveat. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers the returned quantities and a key behavioral caveat. However, it does not describe the return structure, how local time and timezone offsets interact with the 'given moment', or how this tool relates to sibling tools. These gaps are notable but not critical for a basic call.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, though the phrase 'for a given moment' loosely connects to the date/time/tz_offset_minutes parameters. No additional syntax, constraints, or examples are supplied.

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 enumerates what the tool provides: Moon phase, illumination, lunar day, sign and degree for a given moment. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource and outputs are immediately identifiable. It does not name sibling tools, so some differentiation must be inferred.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as planet_positions or aspect_exact_time. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. An agent must rely on the tool name and output list to infer appropriate use.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior, and it does enumerate the returned chart components in reasonable breadth. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a pure read-only computation, whether it imposes timezone/location constraints, or what happens when required inputs are missing.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence with no filler. The main subject and scope are front-loaded, and the enumerated contents flow naturally.

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 gives a broad content summary but lacks return format details and explicit edge-case behavior. It is adequate for a high-level selection, but an agent inferring the exact JSON shape or error semantics would need more information.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description only adds semantic value by summarizing those inputs as 'date, time and place'. It does not clarify deeper parameter interactions like house_system defaults or how tz_offset_minutes affects computations, leaving that to the schema.

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 exactly what resource the tool produces—a 'full birth chart'—and enumerates its contents: planetary positions, house cusps, aspects with orbs, element/modality balance, and configurations. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like planet_positions or moon_state.

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 word 'full' plus the enumerated contents implies this tool is for complete natal chart data, but the description never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives like planet_positions or aspect_exact_time. There is a clear implied usage, but no explicit when-not guidance or sibling references.

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?

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden. It reveals that the data is computed from VSOP87 ephemerides rather than table lookups, which is a useful behavioral nuance. However, it does not disclose any side effects, accuracy limits, or what the tool doesn't do (e.g., no houses, no aspects), leaving some behavioral context uncovered.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence fronts the primary purpose and output, the second clarifies the computation method. No filler, no redundancy. It is efficiently structured with no wasted words.

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 read-only tool with three parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, for a given moment, and how it computes. It lacks a detailed return format, but given the description of the output fields (sign, degree, retrograde) and no output schema, an agent can sufficiently infer the likely shape. The schema handles all parameter timezone details, and no additional prerequisites are evident.

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%: each parameter has a clear description in the input schema. The tool description adds nothing beyond 'given moment', which maps to the date/time expectations already defined. Therefore, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema carries all burden.

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 function: it computes ecliptic longitudes of ten planets for a given moment, with specifics like sign, degree, and retrograde status. It is distinct from sibling tools because it focuses on planetary positions rather than moon state, aspects, or tarot. The computational method (VSOP87) is also noted, leaving no ambiguity about the deliverable.

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?

No explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool, when not to use it, or mention alternatives. The parenthetical 'rather than read from tables' references approach, not selection criteria, so an agent is left to infer from the name and siblings that it is for planetary positions.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains the deterministic calculation: digits of the date are summed and reduced to a 1-22 range, which signals a pure read-only computation with no side effects. It does not discuss invalid-date handling or return format, but for a simple calculator this is adequate.

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 deliver the core concept, algorithm, and result range with no filler. The key differentiator (birth date) is front-loaded, and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter, low-complexity calculation tool, the description explains the input's purpose, the calculation method, and the output range. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by stating the result is a personal major arcanum. Minor omissions like invalid date behavior are acceptable for this simplicity level.

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% and the date parameter is already documented with format 'ГГГГ-ММ-ДД' (YYYY-MM-DD). The description adds the semantic context that the date is a birth date whose digits are summed, which slightly enriches the parameter meaning, but it does not need to compensate for missing schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: computing a personal major arcanum from a birth date via digit summation and reduction to 1-22. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tarot_draw or tarot_card, which do not derive from birth dates. A more explicit verb like 'calculates' would strengthen it, but the meaning is 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?

The description implies the tool is for birth-date-based tarot calculations, which separates it from generic tarot tools, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. The 'from a birth date' phrasing provides reasonable contextual guidance without direct sibling comparison.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns meaning details (upright/reversed, arcanum, suit, links) and that it looks up by slug or Russian name. However, it doesn't mention error behavior for invalid slugs/names, whether it returns both upright and reversed always, or any other behavioral traits. It's adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the core meaning, then lookup details. Every word earns its place. The examples in the description are useful and compact.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the input format and the scope of the returned meaning. It doesn't describe the exact output structure, but with no output schema and a simple lookup, this is a minor gap. The tool is simple enough that the description is nearly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'card' parameter with examples. The description adds the format details (slug pattern like major-00, cups-07) and Russian name examples, which slightly extends the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function: it provides the meaning of a single Rider-Waite tarot card, including upright/reversed, arcanum, suit, and links. It also specifies the lookup methods (slug or Russian name), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like tarot_draw or tarot_deck.

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 when to use this tool: when you need the meaning of a single card, and it explicitly mentions lookup by slug or Russian name. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context of siblings (tarot_draw for draws, tarot_deck for deck info) makes the usage fairly clear.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool returns: the full deck or a filtered group, including upright and reversed meanings. This is sufficient for a simple read-only lookup tool and avoids hidden mutations or surprising behavior.

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 compact sentences fully convey the resource and the optional filter. The core content is front-loaded)Skip; every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity lookup tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the return content online and the only parameter's effect. It could go further by stating output format or explicitly routing to sibling tools, but neither is necessary to call it correctly.

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 schema already documents the single parameter with enum values and the default behavior of returning the whole deck when omitted. The description repeats the allowed groups in English but adds little new semantic value beyond the structured schema.

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 identifies the resource: all 78 Rider-Waite cards with upright and reversed meanings, optionally filtered by group. The noun-phrase style lacks an explicit action verb, but 'All 78 cards' is unambiguous and the group filter distinguishes it from the singular tarot_card sibling.

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 when to use the tool: when you want the full deck or a particular group of cards. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like tarot_card or tarot_draw, but the 'All 78 cards' framing and optional group limitation provide usable context.

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses no-repeats, upright/reversed positions, and deterministic seeding, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention what the output looks like, whether it mutates any state, or any side effects. The disclosed behaviors are accurate and add value beyond the schema.

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 no waste. The core behavior (draws cards without repeats, upright/reversed) is front-loaded, and the determinism note is a valuable addition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 draw tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior and determinism. However, it doesn't describe the return format, which could be important for an agent to know how to interpret the result. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap but still leaves some ambiguity.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds context about determinism with seed and no-repeats, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 draws cards from a deck without repeats, in upright and reversed positions, and mentions determinism with a seed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like tarot_card and tarot_deck by focusing on drawing a spread, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling.

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 generating a spread with optional seed and reversal settings, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tarot_card or tarot_deck. The context is clear enough for a basic use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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