Greene — Archetypal Figures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Archetypal patterns in the chart', which implies a read operation, but provides no further behavioral context (e.g., whether it computes new data, requires network, or has side effects). No contradiction with 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 very short (one sentence plus group label), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits essential information, making it inefficient for agent 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 the tool's complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, many siblings), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, how archetypal patterns are derived, or how to interpret the output. The agent cannot effectively decide to invoke this tool based on the available information.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions), and the description explains none of the 11 parameters. The example request body includes a non-schema field '...chart' which is unclear. The agent receives no guidance on parameter meaning or required inputs beyond the schema structure.

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 'Archetypal patterns in the chart per Liz Greene' provides a basic idea but is vague. The title and group hint at modern psychological astrology, but it doesn't specify what the tool outputs (e.g., a list of archetypes, interpretations) or how it differs from siblings like modern_greene_individuation_path.

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 guidelines on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or cases where this tool is preferred over other Greene-related tools.

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