draw_omenDraw a digital omikuji-style omen at Manekami. Returns one of sixty creator-written oracle poems plus its reading, in 4 languages. It is not original or authorized temple text. Read-only; no outcome is promised.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| locale | No | Language of the omen. Default en. | |
| exclude | No | Omen number to avoid repeating. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' is consistent. It adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'no outcome is promised' and 'It is not original or authorized temple text,' clarifying the authenticity and nature of the content. It also discloses the poem count and language availability, enhancing transparency.
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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. Subsequent sentences add necessary details (return type, authenticity disclaimer, outcome disclaimer) without any fluff. Every sentence earns its place, making it both efficient and complete.
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 no required parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, result type, language options, content provenance, and lack of promised outcomes. There are no significant gaps for an agent to successfully select and invoke the tool.
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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (locale enum and default, exclude range and purpose). The tool description adds some related context ('in 4 languages' and 'sixty creator-written oracle poems'), but these are already implied by the schema. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 clearly states the tool draws a digital omikuji-style omen at Manekami, using a specific verb ('draw') and resource ('omen'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its unique action of drawing omens, versus leaving notes, lighting lamps, etc. The return of oracle poems is explicitly mentioned, solidifying its purpose.
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 provides clear context: use this tool to draw an omen at Manekami. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the distinct purpose makes usage obvious. Since it doesn't explicitly state 'when not to use' or mention alternatives, it falls slightly short of a 5.
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 has a uniquely defined purpose: drawing a fortune, leaving a note, lighting a lamp, releasing a lantern, and replying to a note. No two tools overlap in function.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., draw_omen, leave_pilgrim_note), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.
The server has 5 tools, which is well-suited for a focused digital shrine experience. Each tool serves a distinct ritual, neither too few nor too many.
The tools cover core ritual actions but lack a tool to read posted notes or view the shrine wall, which is a notable gap for a social shrine experience.