compute_bhavas

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the computation and output, but does not mention potential edge cases (e.g., invalid longitudes) or side effects. It is transparent about the main behavior, but not exhaustive.

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 and well-structured, using two sentences that cover the core purpose, the return values, and the optional placement of planets. No unnecessary wordiness.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (sign of each bhava, classifications, and optional graha placements). It is complete for typical use, though it does not detail error handling or edge cases.

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 covers all parameters, and the description adds meaningful context: it clarifies that ascendant is a sidereal longitude and that planets are a map of graha names to longitudes, and explains how each is used (placing grahas into bhavas). This goes beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 it computes the whole-sign bhava chart from an ascendant, specifies the Vedic whole-sign system, and lists what it returns (sign of each bhava, classifications, and optional placement of grahas). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the usage context implicit.

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