ohaeng_balance

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. However, it only states what the tool does (compute and report) without mentioning side effects, idempotency, permissions, or rate limits. For a computation tool, read-only behavior is implied but not confirmed.

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 two sentences plus example queries, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds information—methodology, output, and use cases—with no wasted 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?

Given the complexity of saju analysis and the lack of an output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage well but omits details about the return structure (e.g., format of percentages, element identifiers). This could hinder an agent from correctly parsing results.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining the hidden-stem weighting method, which goes beyond the schema. This context helps the agent understand the computational approach.

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 explicitly states the tool computes the Five Elements distribution using hidden-stem weighting, reports dominant and weakest elements, and provides specific user queries in both English and Korean. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (eumyang_johu, gyeokguk, etc.) which address other aspects of saju analysis.

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 gives clear use cases ('analyze my five elements', 'which element am I missing', '오행 분석'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tool names implies these are separate tools for different analyses.

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