ziwei_basic

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output structure and input requirements, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or limitations. For a calculation tool, this is moderately transparent but not comprehensive.

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 with two paragraphs, front-loading the purpose. It uses clear language and lists output items. Minor improvement could be using bullet points, but it is still efficient.

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, but the description partially compensates by listing output components. However, it omits exact output format or field details, which is important for a complex tool. Given the 11 parameters, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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 100%; each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description adds context about output content and the necessity of gender, but does not significantly enhance understanding 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 clearly states it calculates a Ziwei Doushu natal chart (基础排盘) and lists specific output components (12 palaces, stars, brightness, auxiliary stars, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like ziwei_daxian or ziwei_liunian, which focus on different time periods.

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 what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives. It implies it is for obtaining the basic natal chart, but does not mention when to use siblings for detailed fortune analysis.

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