tcai_emotion_appraise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'inertia' but does not explain what it means (e.g., temporal smoothing, statefulness) or whether the tool has side effects, requires prior state, or is a read-only operation. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 with no wasted words. It is efficient but could be slightly more structured to separate purpose from behavioral notes while still remaining concise.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must carry significant context. It does not explain what PAD space means, what the output looks like, what 'inertia' implies, or any side effects. This is far from complete for a tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage.

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 explain any of the 4 parameters (threat, novelty, rewardSignal, controllability). It only refers to 'raw signals' without mapping them to parameters or clarifying their meaning, ranges, or roles.

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 a specific verb ('Appraise') with a specific resource ('raw signals') and a specific outcome ('PAD emotional space (Mehrabian)'). This distinguishes it from siblings, as no other tool appears to handle emotion appraisal.

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 others. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only implied usage is from the name and description.

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