yijing_generate_hexagram

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. It states what the tool does (generates hexagrams) but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format might be, potential side effects, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits or authentication needs). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function, earning its place.

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 tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It adequately states the purpose but fails to address behavioral aspects, output expectations, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with three parameters and no structured support, the description should provide more guidance on how to interpret results or when to apply different methods, but it doesn't.

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 with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying parameter usage ('指定方法' hints at the 'method' parameter), but it doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or meaning. With high schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('生成' - generate) and resource ('六爻卦象' - hexagram), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'yijing_advise' or 'yijing_interpret', but the specific focus on hexagram generation is apparent. The description avoids tautology by not just restating the tool name.

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 like 'yijing_advise' or 'yijing_interpret'. It mentions '指定方法' (specified method) which hints at the 'method' parameter but doesn't offer context about appropriate scenarios or prerequisites for hexagram generation versus other Yijing-related tools.

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