about_mythsensus_engine

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds substantive context beyond the annotations: it discloses the engine's known limitations (Vedic ayanamsa hardcoded, BaZi solar terms approximated) and its self-critical stance, which tells the agent what kind of candor to expect in the payload.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the content inventory before the usage trigger, so an agent can stop reading once it has what it needs. The 'engineering-honest' and 'upfront' framing is mildly redundant, costing it the top score.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so by enumerating architecture, tier, limitations, roadmap, and links. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric this is a baseline 4. The description correctly implies no input is required and adds nothing misleading about arguments.

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?

Uses a specific verb (Return) plus a specific resource (metadata about the Mythsensus engine) and enumerates the exact contents: architecture, sophistication tier, known limitations, roadmap, and links. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculate_cosmic_score or list_26_systems, which compute or enumerate systems rather than describe the engine itself.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition — use when a user asks 'is this real?' or 'how accurate is it?' — which is concrete and actionable. It stops short of naming alternative tools or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it falls just under full marks.

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