Tristitia — Sorrow

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, but the description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of output structure, query limitations, or required permissions). The discrepancy between required body and example empty body is not addressed.

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 extremely short (three mini-lines), which is concise but at the cost of necessary detail. It front-loads the emotional keywords but fails to explain tool usage or output, earning a middling score for balancing brevity and completeness.

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 tool's context (geomancy figure with many siblings, nested input schema, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify the output format, interpretation content, or how the 'body' parameter affects results, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke correctly.

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 describes the 'body' parameter as 'Raw JSON body — see the example in the tool description for required fields', but the example is empty '{}'. This inconsistency undermines clarity. No guidance is given on valid fields or structure, leaving the agent without actionable parameter semantics.

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 name and title clearly indicate the tool relates to the Tristitia geomantic figure representing sorrow. The description lists keywords like 'Sadness, depression, melancholy' but lacks a verb specifying what the tool does (e.g., returns interpretation, generates chart). The example request body '{}' contrasts with the required body parameter, causing ambiguity.

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 places the tool in the 'Geomancy (Agrippa)' group, hinting it is one of many geomancy figure tools. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., to get meaning of Tristitia), nor any exclusions or alternatives.

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