RWS — Love Triangle

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond '6-card three-person love dynamics,' such as whether it returns card interpretations or positions. Given the presence of annotations, the score is adequate but not enhanced.

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, containing only a one-line summary and an example. While concise, it lacks structured information about what the tool does beyond the minimal statement. The group tag and example add some value, but the description could benefit from a brief explanation of the spread's purpose or output.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, and the description does not specify what the response contains (e.g., card names, positions, interpretations). For a complex spread like a love triangle, this omission leaves the agent uncertain about the return structure. Annotations provide some safety context but not completeness.

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 defines a single 'body' parameter as a JSON object with no internal schema, but the tool description provides an example with fields 'seed,' 'question,' and 'allowReversed.' This example compensates for the lack of explicit schema details, giving meaning to the parameter's structure. However, explicit documentation of these fields would improve clarity.

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 title 'RWS — Love Triangle' and description '6-card three-person love dynamics' clearly indicate the tool is for a specific tarot spread about love triangles. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tarot_rider_waite_draw_relationship by specifying the number of cards and dynamics, making the purpose clear.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tarot_rider_waite_draw_relationship or tarot_lenormand_draw_relationship. The description lacks context about suitable questions or scenarios, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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