compute_drishti

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently explains the asymmetric nature of drishti, the special rules for Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, and the return content (graded strength and house distance). While it doesn't mention side effects (unnecessary for a pure computation) or error handling, it gives a clear behavioral model of the calculation.

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 efficiently structured: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the distinguishing rules, and the third describes the output. Every sentence contributes substantive information without redundancy or filler. It front-loads the core action and remains readable.

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 a pure compute tool with 9 numeric inputs, the description sufficiently conveys the input expectations (via schema and the domain context) and the output format (each aspect with strength and house distance). It lacks explicit mention of the output structure (list vs. object), but that is inferred. No output schema exists, so the description's return description covers the essential; minor gap in not stating the collection type.

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 documentation coverage is 100%, with each parameter described as 'Sidereal longitude of [planet] [0, 360)'. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the domain rules (which planets aspect which signs), which doesn't clarify the input parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 verb 'Compute' and the resource 'graha drishti — Vedic sign aspects' for all nine grahas. It distinguishes the tool from Western aspects and implicitly separates it from sibling compute_* tools by naming the specific astrological concept. An agent can unambiguously identify what this tool computes.

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?

Usage guidance is only implied: the description explains what drishti is and contrasts it with Western aspects, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling compute_* tools (e.g., compute_natal_chart, compute_gochara). No conditions, exclusions, or alternative names are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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