Generate a Qimen Dunjia time chart from a datetime, with stars, doors, deities, stems, and pattern warnings; does not auto-judge auspiciousness.
奇门时家转盘拆补/置闰局：星门神、天地干、主式和另说格局与警示；不自动判吉。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| datetime | Yes | ISO 8601; naive times use input_timezone; chart clock explicitly converts to Beijing civil time. | |
| rollover | No | zi | |
| qimen_method | No | 拆补法 / 置闰法（九日含符首、接气借下元） | chaibu |
| input_timezone | No | Asia/Shanghai |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it does not automatically judge auspiciousness and that output includes warnings/alternative formations, which is useful context for a divination chart with no output schema. It still does not describe return format or timezone behavior in depth.
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?
Single front-loaded sentence with no filler, ordered as purpose → contents → caveat. Every clause carries information.
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 read-only chart tool with no output schema, the description should explain return contents and key parameter choices. It lists output components but omits the return format and leaves rollover/timezone meaning to the schema, which only supplies defaults. Adequate but incomplete.
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 already documents datetime and qimen_method (50% coverage). The description repeats '拆补/置闰' but adds no syntax or behavior beyond the schema. It is silent on rollover and input_timezone, leaving two parameters undocumented, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names the exact resource (奇门时家转盘) and two method variants (拆补/置闰), and lists the produced components (星门神、天地干、主式和另说格局与警示). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_beidou_sky or read_election_windows by domain, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, no alternatives, and no prerequisites are provided. The only guidance is the caveat that it does not automatically judge auspiciousness, which is a behavioral note rather than usage routing. An agent must infer from the tool name that this is the Qimen chart provider.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.