tcai_emotion_appraise

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds 'with inertia' as a behavioral trait, but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, how it handles state, or what side effects might occur. The term 'appraise' suggests computation, but side effects and output details are left ambiguous.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the core function. It contains no unnecessary words or filler. While brief, it earns its place by being direct and purposeful.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. The tool involves emotional appraisal with inertia, which requires explanation of input semantics, statefulness, and output structure. The one-line description fails to provide the necessary context for correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (threat, novelty, rewardSignal, controllability). It only refers to 'raw signals' generically, leaving the agent to infer mappings. With zero parameter details in the description, it adds no value 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 uses a specific verb 'appraise' and clearly identifies the resource/domain: converting raw signals into PAD emotional space, referencing Mehrabian. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, but the focus on emotional appraisal is distinct enough among the provided siblings.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states the function, without mentioning context, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. No usage conditions are implied or stated.

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