Aspect Bars (Gantt)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's added value is limited. It explains the output format (bars with duration and exact dates) and grouping by transit planet, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like data limits or cosmic parameters.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences and an example. It front-loads the main transformation action and immediately provides a concrete use. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description provides a solid overview but lacks detailed guidance on parameter usage and output structure. It feels incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. The example includes startDate, endDate, stepDays, visiblePlanetIds, which adds context. However, it omits explanations for planet1Ids, planet2Ids, aspectAngles, and maxOrb, leaving those parameters underspecified.

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 specifies transforming aspect timelines into Gantt-style bars grouped by transit planet, which is a clear and specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'aspect_timeline', which may also produce timeline-based visualizations, lowering the score from 5.

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 mentions the tool is 'useful for visual transit calendars', giving a hint about when to use it. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it, such as when a different tool like 'aspect_timeline' or 'transit_calendar' would be more appropriate.

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