tcai_capability_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the tool's nature as a port of DirectExperienceLearner and describes the data structure, while also indicating two operations (query and list). However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only or whether querying has any side effects, which is a gap given the lack of annotation support.

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 single, efficient sentence that communicates the tool's purpose and its two modes without redundancy. It defines the acronym EMA inline and avoids unnecessary jargon, making it easy to parse.

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 one optional parameter and no output schema. While the description explains the two operations, it does not describe the return format (e.g., the actual valence value or table structure) or behavior when an unknown action is queried. Given the low complexity, these gaps are notable but not critical.

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 already documents the single 'action' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds meaning by suggesting that including the parameter queries a specific outcome, while omitting it lists the capability table. This implicit mapping helps the agent decide when to include the parameter, going beyond the schema's field description.

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 function: it queries the expected outcome of an action or lists the learned capability table. The verbs 'Query' and 'list' are specific, and the resource is defined as an action→expected-valence map, which distinguishes it from other tcai_ tools focused on different aspects of the agent.

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 provides clear context for two usage modes: querying a specific action's valence and listing the full capability table. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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