iching_cast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It adds critical transparency by prohibiting invented casts and explaining the manual_lines requirement for manual method. This goes beyond the schema by highlighting a key safety rule. It does not cover return format, but an output schema exists, reducing that need.

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 concise sentences deliver the essential information without redundancy. The instruction is front-loaded, and every phrase earns its place, covering core action, a critical constraint, and parameter guidance.

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 an output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the key aspects: action, methods, and a crucial anti-hallucination rule. It does not explain the seed parameter's purpose beyond the schema, but the schema already marks it as optional test/demo. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for selection and invocation.

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 67%, with seed and manual_lines documented. The description adds meaning by explaining the method enum values and the conditional requirement for manual_lines when method=manual. This clarifies relationships between parameters beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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's function: 'Cast an I Ching hexagram.' The verb 'cast' and resource 'I Ching hexagram' are specific and unambiguous. It naturally differentiates from sibling tools like tarot_draw and bazi_cast, which target different divination systems.

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 explicit usage constraints: 'The host MUST NOT invent the cast' and specifies valid methods ('coins, yarrow, or manual'). It also clarifies the dependency between method and manual_lines. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over alternatives, though the context implies it.

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