yijing_interpret

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. It mentions '多层次解读' (multi-level interpretation) but doesn't explain what that entails—such as output format, depth, or any limitations like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 states the core function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and to the point, though it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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's complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what '多层次解读' outputs, how interpretations vary by context, or any behavioral traits, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 '对卦象进行多层次解读' (interpret hexagrams at multiple levels) states the tool's purpose with a verb ('interpret') and resource ('hexagrams'), but it's vague about what 'multiple levels' means and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like yijing_advise or yijing_generate_hexagram. It provides a basic function 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like yijing_advise or combined_analysis. The description implies interpretation but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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