analyze_saju

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only analysis, whether it has side effects, what permissions might be required, rate limits, or what the output format will be. For a complex 9-parameter tool with no annotations, this complete lack of behavioral information is inadequate.

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 extremely concise (one phrase in parentheses) but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. While it's not verbose, it fails to provide the essential context needed for a complex tool. The structure doesn't front-load the most critical information about what the tool actually does.

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?

For a complex tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's purpose, behavioral characteristics, output format, or parameter interdependencies. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without extensive trial and error or external knowledge about Korean astrology systems.

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 lists analysis types that correspond to the 'analysisType' parameter values, adding some context beyond the schema's enum descriptions. However, with 67% schema description coverage and 9 total parameters, the description doesn't explain the relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'fortuneType' is only relevant when 'analysisType' is 'fortune'). It provides minimal value over what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 '사주 분석 통합 (basic/fortune/yongsin/school_compare/yongsin_method)' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'analyze_saju' with a list of analysis types. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'performs Korean astrology analysis' or 'calculates and interprets four pillars of destiny'). The list of analysis types provides some differentiation from siblings, but the core purpose remains vague.

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 about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. While the description lists analysis types, it doesn't explain when to choose 'basic' vs 'fortune' vs other types, or how this comprehensive analysis tool relates to specialized siblings like 'get_daily_fortune' or 'get_fortune_by_period'. The agent must infer usage from parameter names alone.

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