get_liuren

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It indicates the tool performs a computation (divination) and returns structured text and a PNG, but does not state whether it is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The description is not misleading but insufficiently transparent.

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 and well-structured: one sentence for purpose, then clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the inputs (with format/optionality) and outputs (structured text + PNG). It could mention edge cases (e.g., what happens if both datetime_str and manualGanzhi are provided or omitted), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: it explains the format of datetime_str and the optional manualGanzhi's structure with an example (jieqi, cmonth, etc.). This goes beyond the bare schema and helps an agent understand how to use the parameters correctly.

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 performs '대육임 점단' (Dae-Yuk-im divination), a specific action on a specific resource. It includes details about arguments and returns, making the purpose unambiguous even without sibling context.

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 indirectly provides usage guidance by explaining when to use manualGanzhi ('if you provide manual Ganzi, you can skip calendar conversion'). However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, and there are no alternatives mentioned due to absence of siblings.

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