六爻起卦（姓氏/数字）

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the calculation basis (surname/number + time), the action (auto-cast and assemble hexagram), and the return value (hexagram and calculation process). It could add more detail about determinism or timezone handling, but the main behavior is transparent enough for a computation tool.

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 a single dense Chinese sentence that efficiently packages usage conditions, trigger criteria, method, and return information. It is somewhat long but every clause adds value, with no filler.

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?

Despite lacking both annotations and an output schema, the description covers when to use the tool, the exact inputs (stroke count/number + time), and what it returns (hexagram and calculation process). Minor gaps like gender's role are covered by the schema, so the overall context is sufficient.

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 adds meaning by clarifying that surname_num is either the surname stroke count or a 1-64 number, and that year/month/day/hour together form the divination time. This goes beyond the schema's individual field 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?

Description clearly states the tool auto-casts and assembles a Liuyao hexagram from surname stroke count or a 1-64 number plus the divination time, and explicitly lists supported scenarios (decision, exam, job, cooperation, investment, relationship, lawsuit, travel). It differentiates from sibling liuyao_paipan by emphasizing the surname/number-based automatic method used when manual shaking is impossible.

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 an explicit usage condition: 'when the user is uncertain about specific event outcomes and cannot manually shake the hexagram'. It lists many relevant situations, but it does not directly name an alternative tool (e.g., liuyao_paipan) for cases where manual shaking is possible, relying instead on sibling context.

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