Throw Coins

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds 'Seeded' which aligns with idempotency and indicates deterministic behavior. Mentions '3-coin method' which is a behavioral detail. However, does not describe what the tool returns or any side effects 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?

Description is very short with two segments: a one-sentence description and an example. It is concise but at the expense of completeness. The structure is adequate but could be improved by front-loading key information.

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?

With no output schema and a single parameter, the description should at least hint at the output format (e.g., hexagram, lines). It does not. Annotations cover safety but the description lacks essential context for an AI agent to understand the tool's function fully.

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?

Only one parameter 'seed' with 0% schema description coverage. Description mentions 'seed' in example body but does not explain its purpose (e.g., for reproducibility) or allowed types (number/string). The tool does not compensate for the lack of schema 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?

Description states 'Seeded 3-coin method' which indicates the action (coin tossing) and the resource (I Ching hexagram generation), but it does not explicitly mention that it returns a hexagram or reading. Among siblings like iching, iching_by_question, etc., the differentiation is minimal. The name and title help but the description itself is 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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like iching or iching_with_changing_lines. The group marker '[Group: I Ching (Standalone)]' is present but does not provide usage context. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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