Via — The Way

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

Annotations clearly indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false. The description 'Movement, change, journey' does not add or contradict these; it adds no behavioral context beyond 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 extremely concise (one line of keywords, a group reference, and an example) but at the expense of clarity. It is not well-structured for an agent to understand usage.

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 no output schema and a vague description, the tool is incomplete. An agent cannot infer what the tool returns or how to properly call it, despite annotations providing some safety context.

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 one parameter 'body' described as 'Raw JSON body — see the example in the tool description for required fields', but the example is empty '{}'. The description does not clarify the expected structure or required fields, adding no meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Movement, change, journey' is vague and does not specify a verb or resource. It merely restates the title 'Via — The Way', acting as a tautology. Among many geomancy sibling tools (e.g., geomancy_acquisitio), there is no differentiation.

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 about situations where 'Via' is relevant compared to other geomancy figures or tools.

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