8H Aspect Grid

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, which inform the agent of safety and idempotency. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., output format, data dependencies, or performance constraints), so it does not enhance transparency beyond the annotations.

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 very brief—listing aspect angles, group affiliation, and an example placeholder. It avoids verbosity, but critical information is missing. While every sentence is concise, the brevity results in under-specification.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the return value, how parameters affect the output, or when the tool is appropriate. Even with annotations covering safety, the overall context is insufficient for reliable tool selection.

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 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the burden falls entirely on the description. The description offers no explanation for any parameter (e.g., 'date', 'time', 'timezoneOffset', 'cosmogram', 'withTnp'). The example request includes a placeholder '{...chart:...}' but does not clarify parameter purpose, leaving the agent without guidance.

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 title '8H Aspect Grid' and description listing specific aspect angles (22.5°, 45°, 67.5°, 90°, 135°) clearly indicate the tool computes and returns an eight-harmonic aspect grid for the Cosmobiology/Hamburg School tradition. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'aspects' (standard aspects) and 'synastry_aspect_grid' (synastry-focused) by specifying the esoteric subgroup and unique angles.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'aspects', 'synastry_aspect_grid'). It lacks prerequisites, context for appropriate use, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the title and angles alone.

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