Cauda Draconis

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's addition of 'endings, exit' adds metaphorical context but no operational behavioral details. It does not contradict annotations (no contradiction).

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, including a group label and an empty example. While it is concise, it is not efficient because it omits crucial information, making the brevity a drawback rather than a virtue.

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 absence of an output schema and the loosely defined input, the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the output. Sibling tools are not referenced for consistency, leaving the context incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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 a single 'body' parameter with a description that refers to an example, but the tool description provides only an empty JSON example ({}). This fails to clarify what fields or structure are expected, adding no meaningful semantics beyond the schema's own weak description.

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 associates the tool with 'Cauda Draconis — endings, exit', which provides thematic meaning and distinguishes it from sibling geomancy_caput_draconis. However, it lacks a specific verb (e.g., 'return', 'interpret') to state what the tool does, making the purpose somewhat vague.

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 given on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., geomancy_caput_draconis for beginnings). The description does not mention context or alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.

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