Rudhyar — Symbolic Degrees

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as what output to expect or any limitations. Given the annotations, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add value.

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 short, which could be conciseness, but it is under-specified. The inclusion of a cryptic example and a group label does not provide useful structure. It is more minimal than efficient.

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 a very brief description, the tool is poorly contextualized. The description does not explain what the analysis returns, what inputs are essential, or how to differentiate from many similar sibling tools. Annotations provide safety but not task 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the 11 parameters. The example request body is vague and does not clarify parameter usage. This is a critical gap, as the description should compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 'Symbolic-degree analysis' clearly indicates the tool performs analysis of symbolic degrees based on Rudhyar's system. The name and group 'Modern Psychological' further clarify its domain. However, it lacks specifics on what the analysis entails (e.g., interpretation, calculation), which slightly reduces 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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not mention when to use this tool versus other symbolic-degree tools like sabian_symbols or other modern_rudhyar tools. The group label is implicit but insufficient for guiding tool selection.

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