I Ching Hexagrams (The Hexagrams)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates the returned artifacts (King Wen number, Chinese name, Unicode symbol, judgment, translation, plain-language meaning, moving lines, transformed hexagram). It does not mention the inherently non-deterministic/random nature of the cast, which is the one notable behavioral 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?

A single front-loaded paragraph that leads with the action and method before enumerating outputs; every clause maps to a distinct returned element. Slightly dense listing of return fields but no filler sentences.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does so thoroughly, covering primary hexagram, judgment/translation, moving lines, and transformed hexagram. For a zero-required-param generative tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents it fully, including the 'echoed back for context' behavior. The description's note that the question can be optionally attached adds little beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('cast') and resource ('I Ching (Yijing) hexagram') and names the method ('classic three-coin method'), making it immediately clear this generates a new reading rather than looking up a known one. That generation semantics inherently distinguishes it from the get_hexagram and list_hexagrams siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'cast' signals a fresh randomized divination, which contrasts with the lookup/list siblings, but the description never states when to choose this over get_hexagram or list_hexagrams, nor any prerequisites. The optional question guidance is the only explicit usage instruction.

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, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the returned payload in unusual detail (trigram composition, judgment in Chinese plus Legge translation, six line texts, plain-language meaning, source link). It omits failure/ambiguity behavior, such as what happens with an unmatched or ambiguous name.

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, both dense with information, with the identification methods front-loaded before the return-value summary. No filler or 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain returns and does so thoroughly, making it complete for a single-parameter lookup tool. It lacks only edge-case handling (invalid/ambiguous identifiers) to be fully self-sufficient.

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 schema's own description already gives concrete examples ("乾"/"qián"/"Force"/"The Creative"), so the description's listing of number/Chinese/pinyin/English largely restates structured data. Baseline 3 applies; it adds no new constraints or format guidance beyond 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 names a specific verb and resource ("Look up ... hexagram") and enumerates the accepted identifier forms (King Wen number 1-64, Chinese name, pinyin, Wilhelm English name). It reads as an identifier-based retrieval tool, implicitly distinct from cast_hexagram and list_hexagrams, but it never names or explicitly contrasts those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you already have a hexagram identifier to resolve. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing guidance toward cast_hexagram or list_hexagrams for the cases where the user doesn't yet have a number or name.

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 full burden. It implies a read-only enumeration by naming the verb 'List', but does not state pagination behavior, ordering, or that it is safe/non-mutating. For a zero-parameter read tool the risk is low, but the behavioral profile is only implied.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause earns its place by enumerating the returned fields, which is the key information an agent needs here.

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 zero-param list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field inventory, which is exactly what would otherwise be missing. It falls just short of 5 because ordering and count behavior are unstated, but nothing critical is absent.

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?

There are zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case per rubric. The description does not need to document parameter semantics, and it correctly adds nothing spurious.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (all 64 I Ching hexagrams), and enumerates the exact attributes returned (King Wen numbers, Chinese names, pinyin, Wilhelm names, Unicode symbols). An agent can distinguish this from get_hexagram (single lookup) and cast_hexagram (divination) without opening any schema.

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 'all' implies a bulk enumeration use case, which distinguishes it from the singular get_hexagram sibling. However, the description never explicitly states when to prefer this over get_hexagram or cast_hexagram, leaving the routing to inference.

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