destiny_consult

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it provides consultation services without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or mutative, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering to best practices for conciseness.

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 the complexity (4 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the consultation entails, how results are returned, or any prerequisites. With sibling tools offering similar services, more context is needed to differentiate and guide usage. The description is too minimal for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., user_profile, question, context, consultation_type with enum values). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but there's no extra value from the description.

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 '提供命理咨询服务' (provides destiny consultation services) states a general purpose but is vague about what specific action the tool performs. It doesn't specify whether it analyzes, predicts, advises, or synthesizes information, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling tools like bazi_analyze, bazi_forecast, or yijing_advise that likely offer similar services. The description is functional but lacks specificity.

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. With multiple sibling tools related to bazi (八字) and yijing (易经) analysis, there's no indication of whether this tool is a general-purpose consultation that combines methods, a specific type of analysis, or when it should be preferred over more specialized tools like bazi_analyze or yijing_advise. Usage is implied only by the tool name and vague description.

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