Mei Hua Yi Shu Preview

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavior: no record is saved, no timezone/DST/true-solar-time conversion is performed, 23:00 子时 does not advance the date, and leap months keep the same month number. It also notes a special handling for pure Qian/Kun hexagrams. It does not describe return formatting, but the read-only constraint and calculation edge cases are well covered.

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 text is dense but front-loaded, starting with the method and generated outputs before moving to time-handling edge cases. Almost every clause carries behavioral information, though the single long sentence makes it less scannable than it could be.

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 complex 11-parameter divination tool with no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description covers method and time-calculation quirks but leaves key input semantics and subject/record selection undocumented. An agent could call the datetime path, but the numbers path and optional subject parameters remain underspecified.

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?

With 11 parameters and only 18% schema description coverage, the description should compensate heavily for undocumented inputs. It clarifies casting_time behavior and the datetime mode, but leaves upper_number, lower_number, moving_line, subject, locale, notes, question, time_hint, and focus_area largely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 states a specific verb and output set: generating 本卦、互卦、变卦 and 体用 according to the 梅花易数 卷一 先天取数法. That is far more precise than a generic divination label, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling methods such as liuyao or heluo.

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 when the tool applies by naming the Mei Hua method and the time-mode conversion rules, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus other divination preview tools. Selection guidance is therefore only implicit.

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