get_aspects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'calculated by the engine, not estimated,' which hints at a computational rather than observational behavior, but it does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any required permissions, or potential side effects. For a simple query tool, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 exceptionally concise with two sentences, no redundant words, and front-loads the core functionality. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. However, it could be improved by briefly mentioning the output format (e.g., a list or grid of aspects) to fully compensate for the missing output schema. Still, it sufficiently covers the essential context.

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 has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'datetime,' providing full semantics. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3, neither enhancing nor detracting from parameter understanding.

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 calculates major and minor aspects between planets at a given time, with orb and tone, and emphasizes that it is engine-calculated not estimated. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_planet_positions or get_moon_phase, making the purpose very specific and clear.

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 implies usage when one needs aspects at a specific instant, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., get_natal_chart, get_transits). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given, which is a moderate gap given the context of numerous related tools.

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