cn402_iching_relations

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 accurately states the tool returns three types of related hexagrams, which is sufficient for a straightforward read operation. It includes an irrelevant note about pricing, which does not add behavioral transparency. The description does not disclose any side effects or additional behaviors beyond the basic functionality.

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 contains unnecessary information such as 'Price: unknown on Base (auto-paid in USDC).' which is irrelevant for tool selection and invocation. The main functional description is clear, but the extra noise reduces conciseness. The structure is somewhat cluttered with Chinese characters and mixed content.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains what it does. It names the three types of derived hexagrams, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the output. However, it does not specify the format or structure of the return value, but for a simple tool this is acceptable.

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 one required parameter 'number' described as 'Hexagram number 1-64'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, but given high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description could have added context about the range or required nature, but it is already in the schema.

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 purpose: for a given hexagram number, it returns three types of related hexagrams (nuclear, inverse, opposite). It uses specific verbs ('return') and identifies the exact relations, distinguishing it from sibling I Ching tools like 'cn402_iching_hexagram' or 'cn402_iching_divine'.

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 usage when you need the derived relations of a hexagram, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cn402_iching_hexagram' (which might give the full hexagram description) or 'cn402_iching_coin' (for coin divination). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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