compute_composite

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the key algorithm (shorter-arc midpoint, mean speed), the critical matching rule (namesake pairing), and the error condition (missing graha names). It also clarifies that only longitudes are used, which is essential for an agent to anticipate results.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the computation, the second details the matching constraint and error behavior, and the third states the minimal input requirement. There is no repetition or filler.

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?

The description covers input requirements, the algorithm, and error cases, which is substantial for a tool with nested objects and no output schema. It does not explicitly state the output format, but the composite chart is implied by the tool's name and function. For complete clarity, a return structure would help, but the essential context is present.

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 input schema already describes each property, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter semantics by explaining that grahas are paired by name, not list position, and that speed is optional and defaults to 0. This clarifies the expected map structure beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Compute the midpoint composite chart of two charts.' It then details the exact computation (shorter-arc midpoint and arithmetic mean of speeds) and the pairing rule (by namesake), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compute_synastry or compute_transit.

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 gives explicit use conditions: the two charts must have identical graha names, and any name missing from one chart triggers an error. It also states the tool needs only longitudes and does not require birth time, place, or ephemeris, implying when it is appropriate. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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