calculate_event

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by saying the calculation is local and that the seed is recomputable, but it does not disclose what happens if both manual values and a seed are supplied, or what a valid payload must contain. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and input basis. It earns its place, though it is slightly under-specified in terms of payload structure.

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 tool with an opaque payload schema and sibling tools that perform related calculations, the description is too thin. It explains the high-level function but misses payload structure, input alternatives, and when to prefer this tool over siblings. The output schema exists, so return format is less of a concern, but invocation still remains uncertain.

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 coverage is 0% and the payload is an unrestricted object with additionalProperties. The description mentions 'manual yao values' and 'recomputable seed' as conceptual inputs but never specifies the expected keys, value formats, or how these inputs map to the payload. This leaves the agent unable to construct a valid invocation from the description alone.

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 names a specific verb ('calculate'), a resource ('local I Ching event hexagram'), and the two inputs ('manual yao values' or 'recomputable seed'). This is clear and distinguishes the tool from natal/timing calculations by the 'event' scope, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over calculate_natal, calculate_timing, or other siblings. The description implies it is for event hexagrams, but it does not state when manual yao values should be supplied versus a seed, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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