combined_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides minimal information. It mentions the tool performs 'comprehensive analysis' but doesn't describe what that entails, how long it takes, whether it requires specific permissions, what format the analysis takes, or any limitations. For a tool with complex inputs and no output schema, this represents a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise at just one sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't contain any unnecessary information. While this conciseness comes at the cost of detail, the structure itself is efficient and focused.

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 complex analysis tool with four parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of analysis results to expect, how the I Ching and Bazi integration works, what format the output takes, or any prerequisites for meaningful analysis. The user is left with significant unanswered questions about how to effectively use 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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% description coverage. While the schema adequately documents the four parameters (bazi_chart, hexagram, question, analysis_aspects), the description doesn't provide additional context about how these parameters interact or what constitutes valid values. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool performs 'comprehensive analysis combining I Ching and Bazi' which gives a general purpose, but it's vague about what specific analysis it performs. It doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'destiny_consult' or 'yijing_advise' which likely offer similar consultation services. The description lacks a specific verb and resource combination that clearly defines its unique function.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools like 'bazi_analyze', 'yijing_advise', and 'destiny_consult' that appear to offer related services, the description gives no indication of when this combined analysis approach is preferred over using individual tools or other consultation methods. The user must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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