RWS: Chakra

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description usefully adds cost (10 credits, Tier 1) and the endpoint, but says nothing about how the draw is randomized, how seed/allowReversed affect reproducibility, or that conclusions depend on ordering of the seven positions.

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?

One substantive sentence, front-loaded, with no padding. The bracketed metadata lines are structured rather than prose, so they cost little, though the group label duplicates the tool name.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and cost plus endpoint are supplied. Still missing for a zero-required-param draw tool is what the seven chakra positions mean and how the optional inputs change the result — enough gaps that an agent could call it correctly but not interpret or parameterize it well.

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 only 25% — only 'art' is documented — yet the description mentions no parameters at all. The meanings of 'seed', 'question', and 'allowReversed' (notably whether reversed cards can appear) are left entirely to inference, which is a real gap for a divination tool.

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?

States the concrete artifact: a 7-card chakra spread running Root → Crown. That distinguishes it from sibling draws such as celtic cross, three-card, horseshoe, and spiritual path. The verb is implicit (the name carries 'draw'), so it stops just short of a fully explicit verb+resource statement.

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?

No guidance on when to pick this spread over astroway_tarot_rider_waite_draw_spiritual_path or the other RWS draw variants, and no statement of preconditions. The agent must infer selection from the spread name alone.

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