about_mythsensus_engine

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses specific limitations (e.g., 'Vedic ayanamsa hardcoded, BaZi solar terms approximated') and mentions open-source roadmap, giving detailed transparency.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and contents, then usage guidance, then additional context. No wasted words.

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 parameters and no output schema, description covers purpose, contents, and usage guidance sufficiently. It fully addresses what an agent needs to know to decide when to invoke this tool.

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?

No parameters, so baseline is 4. Description adds value by explaining what the tool returns (metadata, limitations, links), compensating for lack of parameter details.

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 it 'Return engineering-honest metadata about the Mythsensus engine' including architecture, tier, limitations, roadmap, and links. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying when to use it: when users ask about credibility or accuracy.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this tool when a user asks "is this real?" or "how accurate is it?"' providing clear usage context. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the unique purpose is evident.

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