eumyang_johu

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

With no annotations provided, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states what the tool reports (ratio, tendency, shifts) but does not disclose safety aspects (e.g., read-only nature, side effects) or permissions. It implies a read-only diagnostic but doesn't confirm it.

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 example queries) and front-loaded with the core function. It efficiently conveys the tool's diagnostic purpose without unnecessary wording.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains the output (ratio, tendency, shifts across periods) and provides example usage. It doesn't detail return format or pagination, but for a diagnostic tool, this is acceptable.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only provides example queries. No per-parameter elaboration is given in the description.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Yin-Yang and Climate balance diagnostic' and specifies what it reports (ratio, tendency, shifts over fortune periods). Example queries further clarify its purpose. While sibling tools are not explicitly compared, the tool's niche is distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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 example queries like 'is my chart hot or cold', suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or how it differs from siblings such as ohaeng_balance or yongshin_candidates. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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