cn402_zhanbu_liuyao

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (original+transformed hexagram, changing lines, interpretation) and mentions the payment aspect ('Price: unknown on Base'). However, it does not describe idempotency, error behavior, or rate limits.

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 well-structured with all necessary information up front. It could be slightly more concise by reducing the listing of alternative names, but overall it efficiently conveys the tool's function and output.

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 has only two simple parameters and no output schema. The description comprehensively explains the return value (original+transformed hexagram, changing lines, interpretation) and includes the price note, making it complete for its complexity level.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both optional parameters. The description repeats that question and date are optional but adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool as 'Six Lines divination / Liu Yao' with specific verb 'Cast' and resource 'Six-Line divination'. Among siblings with other iching methods, this one clearly specializes in the Liu Yao method, making its purpose distinct.

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 states that the tool performs Six Lines divination with optional question and date, implying use for that method. However, no explicit guidance is given on when to use this versus alternative divination tools (e.g., iching_coin, iching_meihua) or when not to use it.

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