cn402_iching_random

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions output components (lines, judgment, image, meaning) but lacks details on response format, cost implications ('Price: unknown'), or any side effects. A generative tool should disclose more behavioral context.

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 includes redundant synonyms and multilingual keywords, which adds fluff. The core sentence ('Generate a random I Ching hexagram...') is clear but could be tighter. Some sentences are uncredited for the main purpose.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description should fully specify what the agent receives. It mentions output components but not their exact structure or format. For a simple tool, it is mostly adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Input schema has no parameters, so coverage is 100%. With 0 params, baseline is 4. Description adds no parameter info because none exist, which is appropriate.

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 specifies the tool's action ('Generate a random I Ching hexagram') and the resource (hexagram with lines, judgment, image, meaning). It distinguishes itself from siblings like iching_full or iching_coin by emphasizing random quick draw.

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 'casual Yi Jing reading' and quick divination but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other iching siblings (e.g., iching_coin, iching_divine). No when-not or alternatives are provided.

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