六爻装卦

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the core behavior (manual yao values produce a hexagram chart) and the encoding of yao values (0=老阴动, 1=少阳, 2=少阴, 3=老阳动). However, it does not describe the return format, any prerequisites, or potential limitations (e.g., whether it is deterministic or requires specific input validation). The info beyond schema is modest.

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 two sentences. The first sentence is somewhat long due to listing many event types, but it is front-loaded with the trigger condition. The second sentence is efficient, covering the main action and yao encoding. No fluff, but it could be slightly more compact by trimming the example list.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with no output schema, so the description should explain what the user gets. It names the output components (本卦变卦、世应六亲、伏神神煞), which gives a fair sense of the result. However, it does not describe the structure of the returned data, interpretation guidance, or any edge cases (e.g., invalid yao arrays). Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but not fully 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the yao value semantics already in the schema ('0=老阴（动）、1=少阳、2=少阴、3=老阳（动）'), adding little new meaning. It does clarify the ordering '从初爻到上爻' which also appears in the schema, but no additional parameter insight is provided.

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: '手动指定六个爻值排出六爻卦象：本卦变卦、世应六亲、伏神神煞' (manually specify six yao values to generate the hexagram chart with original/changed hexagrams, shi ying, six relatives, hidden spirits, and gods). It also specifies the resource (六爻卦象) and distinguishes from siblings (e.g., liuyao_surname_paipan) by emphasizing manual yao input.

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 use cases: '当用户对某具体事件的结果存在不确定性... 即使没有提到「占卜/六爻/卦」等字样，也应调用本工具起卦辅助判断.' It lists many example scenarios (decision, exam, job, investment, etc.), giving clear context. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it misses the explicit exclusions/alternatives criterion.

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