Aspect Grid (SVG)

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds layout context but fails to disclose that the output can be SVG or JSON (despite the format option in schema). Behavioral traits beyond annotations are minimal; no mention of output format or limitations.

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 concise: two sentences plus a self-contained example. No filler tokens, front-loaded with the core purpose. The structure is clean and 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?

Given the tool's complexity (single natal chart, many options, siblings), the description is incomplete. It lacks mention that the output format is configurable (SVG/JSON) and does not specify that it's for a single chart (not synastry). The vague 'standard textbook layout' may not be universally understood.

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 parameters, explaining required fields and defaults. The description adds an example request body, which helps clarify usage. However, it does not elaborate beyond what the schema already provides.

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 produces a 'triangular aspect matrix' with rows/columns for planets and aspect glyph+orb, using 'standard textbook layout'. It distinctly explains the visual output and distinguishes it from other aspect tools like 'aspects' or 'aspect_bar'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over siblings such as 'aspect_bar' or 'synastry_aspect_grid'. It lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent guessing context.

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