liuyao_divination

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It explains the divination method (auto/manual), the need for gender in some cases, and the input format. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or free of side effects, though it is implied by nature. Slight omission keeps it from a perfect score.

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 well-organized with sections for purpose, trigger conditions, non-applicable scenarios, and parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses concise, informative sentences 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides complete guidance on invocation, including conditional rules (gender for love). It covers all necessary context for correct use.

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 all 6 parameters with descriptions in Chinese. The description further elaborates on parameter usage, such as 'gender' being required for love topics, 'method' defaulting to auto, and the meaning of 'lines' and 'old_lines'. This adds significant value beyond the schema alone.

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 the tool is for Liu Yao divination using specific systems (Huozhulin method and Zengshan Buyi). It provides a concise summary of its function, distinguishing it from potential sibling tools (though none listed). The verb '排盘' and '解读' accurately describe the action.

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 includes explicit trigger conditions (e.g., keywords like '测', '算', '卦') and non-applicable scenarios (e.g., scientific predictions). It also provides a specific rule for asking gender on love-related questions. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool versus alternatives.

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