compute_ashtakavarga

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. The description reveals the calculation scope and the source text, but does not disclose the output format (return value structure), whether it is a pure calculation, any edge cases (like invalid sign positions), or whether it includes Lagna in the 7 planets despite taking 8 inputs. This is a significant transparency gap for a calculation tool.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the main computation and quickly state the source and exclusions. No wasted words, but it could be slightly more structured with explicit output format details.

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 an 8-parameter calcification tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core computation scope and exclusions but lacks output format details, behavioral edge cases, and the relationship of Lagna to the 7 planets (potential confusion: it says 7 planets but takes 8 inputs including lagna). This is adequate but has clear gaps that an agent might trip 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?

The schema has 25% coverage: only sun and lagna have descriptions clarifying they are sign indices with the mapping (0=Aries…11=Pisces). The description says 'sign positions' but does not clarify the indexing scheme for all 8 inputs, though the range 0–11 in the schema implies the same mapping for all. The description adds the purpose of the parameters (planetary sign positions for Ashtakavarga), but doesn't fully compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 tool computes Bhinna Ashtakavarga and Sarvashtakavarga for all 7 planets from sign positions, with a specific source reference. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compute_dasha, compute_shadbala, or compute_vargas which handle different astrological calculations.

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 states which astrological technique is covered (Ashtakavarga) and explicitly lists what is excluded (Trikona/Ekadhipatya Shodhana, Pinda Sadhana), helping agents know what this tool does and does not compute. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this vs. sibling tools like compute_shadbala or compute_vargas, though the domain specificity makes this fairly clear.

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