Quick Emotion Tracker

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

No annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It signals that the tool is stateless and context-free ('quick', 'no project context needed'), which usefully tells the agent it can be called without setting up a project. It says nothing about whether results are persisted, cost, or output shape.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the key constraint (no project context needed) stated up front. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally sound.

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?

For a single-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is nearly adequate, but with two near-identical siblings and no annotations the description should explain what makes this analyzer different and what a caller gets back. Those gaps matter for correct selection.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'text' fully. The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the expected baseline for full schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: analyze emotion and tone of a text passage. But it does not distinguish itself from the very close siblings story_analyze_sentiment and story_analyze_voice, leaving the agent unable to tell which analyzer to pick. 'Quick' and 'no project context' hint at scope but never establish the boundary.

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?

'Không cần context dự án — chỉ cần đưa vào đoạn văn' gives an implied usage condition (use when you have a standalone snippet and no project state). No explicit exclusion against story_analyze_sentiment or story_analyze_voice, so the sibling decision is left to inference.

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