RWS — Shadow Work

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., emotional impact of shadow work, or use of seed for reproducibility is only hinted via example).

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 concise: two sentences plus an example. It front-loads the purpose and group, with no unnecessary words.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., spread interpretation, card positions). It does not. The minimal description leaves the agent guessing about output format and behavior.

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 a single generic object parameter 'body' with no defined properties, so the description's example (seed, question, allowReversed) provides necessary clues. However, it does not formally document these fields, their types, or constraints, leaving ambiguity.

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 '6-card shadow integration spread', clearly indicating the tool draws a specific tarot spread. However, it does not differentiate this spread from the many other tarot draw tools among siblings, leaving the agent to infer its unique purpose.

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 vs. other tarot spread tools (e.g., celtic cross, decision). The description gives no context about appropriate use cases or alternatives.

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