KP — Ruling Planets

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing the exact components that go into the ruling planets and noting deduplication. An example request body is provided, giving practical insight into usage.

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 concise: two sentences plus an example. It includes a group label and is front-loaded with the key purpose. Every part serves a function without redundancy.

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 has 11 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings. The description does not explain the return format, how many ruling planets to expect, or how to interpret results. It also omits guidance on optional parameters like houseSystem or zodiacType, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden for parameter understanding. It only provides an example request body with some parameters but no explanations of their meanings, defaults, or valid values. This is insufficient for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 that the tool computes canonical KP ruling planets from a specific list of components (Day-lord, Hora-lord, etc.) and mentions horary timing analysis. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like vedic_kp_significators or vedic_kp_sub_lords, which may have overlapping functions.

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?

It states 'Used in horary timing analysis,' providing general context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vedic_kp_horary or other KP tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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