hexagram_number

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool calculates a value, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like computational complexity, error handling (e.g., for invalid 'n'), output format, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by domain/category tags. There's no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for a simple calculation tool. However, the parentheses and tags could be slightly streamlined for better readability.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a hexagram number is mathematically, how it's computed, what the output looks like, or any constraints. For a tool with such sparse structured data, the description should provide more context to be useful.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, with one required parameter 'n' of type integer. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'n' is an index ('nth hexagram number'), but doesn't specify valid ranges (e.g., n ≥ 1?), meaning, or examples. This doesn't compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Calculate the nth hexagram number (Star of David).' It specifies the verb ('calculate'), the resource ('hexagram number'), and provides clarifying context ('Star of David') and domain/category tags. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools (like 'star_number' or other figurate number calculators), preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the domain ('arithmetic') and category ('figurate_numbers'), which implies context but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'star_number', 'centered_hexagonal_number'). This leaves the agent with minimal direction.

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