compute_vargas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral trait: it returns a ChartGraph JSON per division, including positions and dignities, and 'compute' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not mention the optional planet_longitude mode or any edge cases/limitations, leaving some behavior implicit.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose, input style, and output shape are all stated up front, and every sentence earns its place.

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 computation tool with well-documented schema parameters, the description covers inputs, outputs, and expected result content. The main gap is that it does not mention the optional planet_longitude path embedded in the schema, leaving a secondary invocation mode undocumented in prose.

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. The description adds a general sense of what divisions are used for but does not provide additional meaning beyond the schema, e.g. it does not explain when planet_longitude should be supplied or how it interacts with the required time/location parameters.

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 Vedic divisional charts (vargas)'. It clarifies scope with division codes (D1, D9, D10) and the output format (ChartGraph JSON with planetary positions and dignities). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like compute_natal_chart.

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 a direct usage instruction: supply division codes and receive JSON per varga. It implies the tool is for varga computation from time and location, but it never states when to prefer this over compute_natal_chart or other siblings, nor what circumstances make it inappropriate.

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