chart_wheel_on_aspect_click

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

The description adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true) by detailing that it is an event handler and returns interpretation. No contradictions. It does not mention exact return format but is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, highly concise, front-loaded with the core purpose and usage constraints. Every sentence is valuable and necessary.

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 comprehensive schema, annotations, and sibling context, the description is sufficient for understanding the tool's role. It could briefly mention the return type (e.g., string) but is otherwise 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it only gives a general overview of the tool's function.

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 identifies the tool as an event handler for clicking an aspect line, specifies that it returns astrological interpretation, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like chart_wheel_on_house_click and chart_wheel_on_planet_click by focusing on 'aspect line' interaction.

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 explicitly states 'This tool is called automatically by the chart UI; you do not need to call it directly,' providing clear guidance on when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for manual use.

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