get_hexagram_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced' details and 'improving content quality,' which suggests this might return more or better data than a basic version, but doesn't specify what that entails (e.g., format, structure, or performance). It also doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, error handling, or any rate limits, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with key information ('Enhanced hexagram details...'), making it efficient. Every sentence adds value: the first specifies content, and the second addresses compatibility. There's no unnecessary repetition or fluff, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 has 1 simple parameter, an output schema (which handles return values), and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and content enhancements but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and parameter meaning. For a tool with low complexity, it meets basic needs but leaves gaps that could confuse an AI agent, especially without annotations to fill in behavioral aspects.

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 description doesn't mention the 'hexagram_number' parameter at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, with only 1 parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3 as the schema handles the input definition adequately, and the output schema can cover return values. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions but doesn't severely hinder understanding due to simplicity.

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 the tool provides 'enhanced hexagram details' with specific content elements (traditional Chinese names, Unicode symbols, rich commentary), which gives a general purpose. However, it doesn't specify the exact verb (retrieve? fetch? display?) or clearly distinguish from sibling tools like 'i_ching_divination' which might also provide hexagram information. The mention of 'backward compatibility' suggests this might replace or enhance an existing tool, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'i_ching_divination' or 'bibliomantic_consultation' is provided. The description implies it's for getting detailed hexagram information, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The backward compatibility note hints at context for existing users but doesn't help an AI agent decide when to invoke it.

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