Via Combusta Check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destuctiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it specifically checks the Moon and ASC in a defined degree range, but does not elaborate on other behavioral traits like error conditions or output format. With annotations covering safety, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 main description is a single sentence that clearly states the tool's action. Group, cost, and an example are appended but do not clutter the core message. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the example could be shortened or moved to optional expansion.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose and provides an example for input formatting. However, it does not specify the return value or output structure (e.g., Boolean, object). Given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, this omission reduces completeness for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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 all seven parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description includes an example request body, which provides a concrete usage format but does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 clearly states the tool checks if the Moon or ASC is in the Via Combusta (15° Libra – 15° Scorpio), specifying a verb (check) and a resource (Moon/ASC condition). It distinguishes from siblings like horary_moon_voc or horary_diagnostics by focusing on this specific classical prohibition.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as horary, horary_moon_aspects, or horary_diagnostics. It only mentions it's a 'classical prohibition in horary,' which implies context but lacks explicit usage instructions or exclusions.

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