cn402_zhanbu_liuren

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'computes' a chart, but does not clarify if it has side effects, requires authentication, or has cost implications (except a vague price mention). It does not describe read-only or destructive nature, nor any other behavioral traits.

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 but includes several alternative names and transliterations that may be extraneous. The price mention is irrelevant for usage. The core functionality is stated upfront, but the extra details add clutter without significant value.

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 complex (divination chart with multiple components), but no output schema is provided. The description names components (Heaven plate, Earth plate, etc.) but does not explain the output format or how to interpret results. This leaves the agent uncertain about what the tool returns, making it incomplete for effective use.

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% for the one parameter 'datetime'. The description merely restates that it takes a datetime, adding no new information beyond the schema's description 'Datetime YYYY-MM-DD HH:MM (optional)'. Thus, the description adds no additional meaning.

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 identifies the tool's purpose as computing the Da Liu Ren divination chart (Heaven plate, Earth plate, 4 lessons, 3 transmissions) for a given datetime. It distinguishes the specific method from sibling tools like cn402_zhanbu_liuyao or cn402_zhanbu_qimen by using specific terminology (Liu Ren, Da Liu Ren, etc.).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where Liu Ren divination is appropriate compared to other divination methods available among siblings.

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