Amissio — Loss

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) already indicate no side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the figure's symbolic meaning. It does not disclose any traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or response characteristics.

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 short (one line plus group and example). It is front-loaded with key symbolic meaning and is not wordy. It earns its place by being efficient, though it could be slightly more informative without bloat.

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 of geomantic figures and the lack of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., an interpretation, associated meanings, or usage). It fails to provide a complete understanding of the tool's functionality for an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the 'body' parameter, which instructs to see the tool description for required fields. However, the tool description only provides an empty example '{}', adding no further structure or meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter definition.

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 states the geomantic figure's meaning ('Loss, letting go, slipping away') and groups it under Geomancy (Agrippa), which helps identify the domain. However, it does not specify what the tool does (e.g., interprets, calculates, or returns details about the figure). The purpose is vague but not a complete tautology.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus its many geomantic siblings (e.g., geomancy_acquisitio, geomancy_albus). The agent receives no context for selection based on user intent or other factors.

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