qimen_yongshen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It comprehensively lists the analysis components: identification of main/auxiliary yong shen, status (旺相休囚死), empty/grave/torture, relationship with day stem, pattern effects, host-guest analysis, optional year stem and gods information, and a scoring system. It also notes output as structured Markdown. No side effects are mentioned, but the tool is likely read-only.

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 well-structured with bullet points and clear sections. It is informative without being overly verbose. While somewhat lengthy, the complexity of the topic justifies the length.

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 of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the analysis process, parameters, and output format. It mentions the prerequisite of a basic pan, but could explicitly reference the sibling tool qimen_basic. The scoring system is noted but not detailed, which is acceptable.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of key parameters like shiLei (the 14 affair types are listed), nianGan (year stem for optional analysis), and includeShenSha. This context goes beyond the schema 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 it is for '奇門遁甲用神分析' (Qi Men Dun Jia Yong Shen analysis), specifying it operates on top of a basic pan and supports 14 specific affair types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qimen_basic (which likely handles the basic pan) and qimen_zeri (day selection).

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 a clear context: it should be used after obtaining a basic pan ('在基礎排盤基礎上'). It also lists 14 affair types for which it is intended. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct comparisons to sibling tools, though the specialization is implied.

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