d3p_emoji-sentiment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool returns an emoji and mood score, and mentions cost (3 sats) and category. However, it does not describe any side effects, rate limits, or behavior on empty input. The description is adequate but not highly detailed.

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 relatively concise, front-loading the core purpose. However, it redundantly includes the parameter info both in text and as a separate line. It could be slightly streamlined, but overall it's efficient.

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 the tool has a single parameter (wrapped in JSON) and an output schema exists, the description covers the main functionality. However, it does not mention the mood score range or any text length limits, leaving some gaps. It is adequate for a simple tool but not fully 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?

The input schema has a single 'params' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by stating that the JSON string must contain a 'text' field (required) and explains its purpose: 'Text to analyze for emoji sentiment.' This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Analyze text and return the emoji that best matches the vibe, plus a mood score.' It specifies the resource (text) and the output (emoji and score), and distinguishes it from siblings like d3p_vibe-check by focusing on emoji sentiment.

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 gives examples of when to use ('tweets, DMs, commit messages') but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like d3p_vibe-check or d3p_roast-my-idea. The usage context is implied but not clearly bounded.

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