yarrow

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: it returns specific line values (6,7,8,9), moving lines, and a changing hexagram. It also discloses that passing 'seed' makes the cast deterministic. It does not mention side effects, but none are expected.

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 three sentences, front-loads the purpose, and includes all essential details without extraneous information. 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return values comprehensively (primary hexagram, lines, moving lines, changing hexagram). It is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool produces.

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 description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for the parameters. The parameter descriptions in the schema already cover their purpose, so the description's marginal value is limited.

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 action 'Cast a hexagram for an I-Ching consultation' and enumerates the return values (primary hexagram, lines, moving lines, changing hexagram). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lookup_hexagram', which likely only retrieves existing information.

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 explains when to use the 'seed' parameter for deterministic casting, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools 'divine' and 'lookup_hexagram' to guide the agent on when to choose this tool over them.

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 full burden. It discloses the daily quota (30 per device_id or IP), language support, and the pipeline steps (cast, lookup, produce reading). This provides adequate behavioral context 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?

The description is two sentences, starting with the core purpose and followed by key details (languages, quota). It is efficient and front-loaded, with no unnecessary 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?

Given the complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the main function, supported languages, and quota. Missing return format description but acceptable for a pipeline tool. Adequate for agent invocation.

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 60%. The description lists languages and mentions quota but does not add extra meaning to parameters like seed or method beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as description adds minimal additional value.

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 is a 'Full I-Ching consultation pipeline' that casts a hexagram, looks up classical sources, and produces a reading. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like cast_hexagram, lookup_hexagram, and lookup_yilin by being a composite pipeline.

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 as a complete consultation tool but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. It mentions a daily quota but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons.

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 full burden. It discloses the return content (Chinese and English sources) but does not mention limitations, side effects, or whether the operation is read-only. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence front-loads the purpose, but it is long and lists many items. It could be slightly more concise without losing information. Efficient overall.

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 no output schema, the description lists return components but does not specify format or structure. With 3 parameters and sibling tools, more context on output and usage boundaries would improve completeness.

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 67% already, and the tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. The description's mention of 'by its number' adds no new meaning.

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 returns classical sources for a hexagram by number, listing specific components. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cast_hexagram' or 'divine', leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to lookup vs. cast or divine). The description lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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 burden. It discloses that the tool performs a local classical-source lookup (not AI), indicating no interpretation or mutation. It does not discuss error handling or edge cases, but for a simple lookup, the behavior is mostly transparent.

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 action and resource, no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a key distinction.

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 does not specify the return format, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can infer it returns the associated verse. It differentiates well from siblings. Minor gap in describing the output.

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?

Both parameters have descriptions in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that the lookup is for a verse associated with the transition between two hexagrams, clarifying the purpose beyond the schema's numeric range descriptions.

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 verb 'look up' and the specific resource '焦氏易林 verse' for a primary hexagram changing into another. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'lookup_hexagram' by focusing on a pair of hexagrams and noting it is a local classical-source lookup.

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 authoritative lookup of hexagram transition verses, and contrasts with AI reading, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'lookup_hexagram' or 'divine'. Some context is implied but not explicit.

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