Greene — Parental Imagos

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the tool is safe and idempotent. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'analysis', missing details like what data is used, whether it requires a full chart, or what happens to the input.

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 but sacrifices clarity. The group label '[Group: Modern Psychological]' is a clutter, and the example is incomplete. The core sentence is front-loaded but insufficient.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the description should provide operational context. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or what 'parental imagos analysis' means in practice. This is critically incomplete for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation for any of the 11 parameters (e.g., date, time, houseSystem, zodiacType). The only mention is a malformed example snippet that does not clarify parameter meanings.

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 states 'Parental imagos analysis', indicating the tool performs analysis on parental image archetypes in astrology. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'calculates' or 'interprets', and does not differentiate from sibling tools such as modern_greene_lunar_myth or modern_greene_saturn_shadow. The broken example request body adds confusion rather than clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools list is extensive but the description gives no hints about appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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