Lefeldt Extensions

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, it adds no other behavioral context, and the example request body is a placeholder. No contradiction with 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?

Extremely brief but the example request body is a placeholder and adds no value. The structure is not front-loaded with actionable information; the group line is helpful but insufficient.

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 12 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to cover return values, parameter interactions, or use cases.

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 0%, meaning no parameters are explained in the description. The description does not clarify the meaning or usage of any of the 12 parameters, including required ones like date and time.

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?

Description provides only the title and a brief mention of 'Lefeldt-Brummund 22.5° subdivisions' without a verb or explicit action. It does not clearly state what the tool does or how it differs from siblings like cosmobiology_cosmogram or cosmobiology_midpoint_pictures.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context for appropriate usage scenarios or when not to use it.

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