ziwei_xiaoxian

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It does not mention return format, error handling, mutability, or side effects. The tool likely returns a list, but no output schema or description of response is given, leaving behavior opaque.

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?

Description is well-structured with bullet points, concise at about 10 lines, and front-loaded with a clear definition. Every sentence adds value except perhaps some redundancy in the calculation comparison.

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 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the concept well but lacks details on output structure, pagination, or how results are returned. For a complex tool, more completeness is needed, especially about the response.

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. Description adds no further parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. The general explanation of 小限 adds context but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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?

Description clearly states tool lists '紫微小限' (minor limit) and defines it as an annual fortune unit with specific attributes. It distinguishes from '流年' (yearly flow) and mentions hierarchy, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ziwei_daxian' or 'ziwei_liunian', which hampers precise purpose clarity.

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?

Description provides context on what 小限 is and contrasts it with 流年, implying when to use. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other Zi Wei tools (e.g., for major limits or daily flow), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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