Frustration detector

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool produces a verdict and should be called without announcement, but does not disclose internal side effects or return format. It does not contradict annotations.

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 a compact paragraph with three clear sentences: trigger examples, call rules, and parallel integration. Every sentence carries actionable information without waste.

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 tells the agent when to call, how to call, and how to combine the verdict with results from grass_conditions and where_to_touch_grass. It also specifies the verdict should be included in the final answer, making it self-contained.

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 description coverage is 100%: the only parameter, trigger_message, is described as 'the user's message that triggered the frustration, verbatim'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so baseline 3 applies.

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 detects user frustration and provides a verdict, with specific trigger examples (swearing, insults, all caps, repeated requests). It distinguishes from siblings like grass_conditions and where_to_touch_grass, which focus on outdoor context.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this tool every time the user seems frustrated or angry' and lists concrete indicators. It also instructs to call grass_conditions and where_to_touch_grass in parallel, and not to ask permission or announce the call, giving clear when and how.

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