practice_principle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and meets it by disclosing the three-part return structure and the input concept. It doesn't mention side effects, but the tool appears to be a non-mutating lookup/reflection generator, and the description's 'returns' framing is adequate.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose and keeps supplementary context in a short follow-up phrase plus repo link. It is efficient without being under-specified.

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 output schema, the description does enough to tell an agent what results to expect. The two parameters are already documented in the schema, so nothing critical is missing; a short note on error behavior or non-matching principles would make it complete.

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 the principle parameter already enumerating all available values and lang describing its options/default. The description adds only a light conceptual gloss ('yama/niyama/concept') rather than substantial new meaning, so the schema baseline of 3 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 states a specific resource (yogic principle) and exactly what is returned: a relevant verse, an AI-agent reflection, and a practical exercise. This makes the tool's function clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like search_verses or get_verse.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The 'Part of the Yogic Alignment Framework' phrase gives some context, but the description does not tell an agent when to select this over search_verses, reflect, or daily_sadhana.

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