yijing_advise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool provides advice but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's deterministic, requires specific hexagram formats, has limitations on question types, or how it handles the optional 'options' parameter. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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.

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 a nested object and enum, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the advice output looks like, how hexagram data should be structured, or the tool's limitations, leaving significant gaps for an agent to rely on.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (hexagram, question, options, time_frame). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or usage nuances. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '基于卦象提供决策建议' (provides decision advice based on hexagrams) states a general purpose but lacks specificity about what kind of advice or how it differs from siblings like 'yijing_interpret' or 'combined_analysis'. It mentions the resource (hexagrams) but doesn't clarify the verb beyond 'advise'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'yijing_interpret' (which might interpret hexagrams without advice) or 'combined_analysis' (which could integrate multiple methods). The description implies it's for decision-making but doesn't specify contexts or exclusions.

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