release_lanternRelease an anonymous sky lantern at the digital shrine to give thanks after a creative milestone (no content, no account). A symbolic ritual; no outcome is promised.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: the action is anonymous, requires no content/account, and is a symbolic ritual with no guaranteed outcome. This goes beyond the annotations to clarify the tool's real behavior and side-effect-free nature.
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 action and purpose. Every clause adds value: 'anonymous', 'no content, no account', 'symbolic ritual; no outcome is promised' are all meaningful. 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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and a simple symbolic action, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what, when, why, and what to expect, leaving no obvious gaps.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered (100%). The description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and context.
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 a specific action ('Release an anonymous sky lantern') with a resource ('digital shrine') and purpose ('give thanks after a creative milestone'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'no content, no account', which separates it from tools that might involve content or accounts.
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 for when to use ('after a creative milestone') and sets expectations ('symbolic ritual; no outcome is promised'). It also mentions 'no content, no account' as prerequisites, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.
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.