human_design_penta

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond a credit cost of 6 credits per call. No mention of rate limits, caching, or other traits. The credit cost is useful but not rich.

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 plus a credit cost line and an example. It front-loads the main purpose and outputs. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the example could be slightly more compact. Still, it's well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (functional attributes, etc.). All parameters are covered in the schema and description. The credit cost and example add completeness. No gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value with an explicit example showing the ISO 8601 format for datetime and clarifying the array size constraint (3-5 members). This extra context earns a 4.

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 calculates a Human Design Penta group chart for 3-5 people, listing the output components (functional attributes, leadership dynamics, channels, redundancies, group stability score). This distinguishes it from siblings like human_design_bodygraph or human_design_composite. Verb ('Calculate') and resource are specific and unique.

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 provides credit cost and an example but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., human_design_composite). The use case is implied (group of 3-5 people) but no exclusions or context are given.

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