cn402_iching_divine

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

With no annotations, the description provides good behavioral detail: it performs a full divination workflow, uses the three-coin method, and returns hexagram, changing lines, and interpretation. The price note hints at a payment requirement, adding transparency. However, it does not disclose potential state changes or auth needs beyond payment.

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 moderately concise, including useful multi-language text and workflow details. It front-loads the main purpose but includes extra information about price and method that could be more integrated. Still, it is not overly verbose and earns its sentences.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return value (hexagram, changing lines, interpretation) and method (three-coin). It covers the essential behavioral aspects needed for an agent to understand what the tool provides.

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% with a clear parameter description for 'question'. The tool description reinforces that the parameter is the user's question but adds no new semantic details like format or length constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already covers the parameter.

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 is for I Ching divination by question, detailing the workflow: takes a question, casts hexagram via three-coin method, returns hexagram, changing lines, and interpretation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cn402_iching_hexagram or cn402_iching_coin by emphasizing the question-driven full divination process.

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 implies use for specific questions ('by question') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cn402_iching_full or cn402_iching_random. It mentions price and auto-payment but lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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