get_synastry

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it computes aspects, sorts by orb, and provides a harmony/tension summary. It also mentions reusing the canonical aspect table, adding useful context.

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, with two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description explains the output involves aspects sorted by orb and a harmony/tension summary. However, it lacks details on the exact output structure (e.g., fields of each aspect). For a moderately complex tool, it is nearly complete.

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 schema already describes all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond naming the two persons, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 it computes synastry aspects between two individuals, sorted by orb, with a harmony/tension summary. It explicitly mentions 'aspects inter-thèmes entre deux personnes' and 'triés par orbe', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_aspects or get_composite_chart. It implies usage for synastry analysis but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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