tcai_capability_model

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

The description implies a read-only operation (querying a learned model) but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or disclose any side effects. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it falls short of fully disclosing behavioral traits.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without extraneous content. Every word is purposeful, making it highly efficient for an AI agent 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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality, including both query and list modes. However, it does not specify the return format or structure of the 'expected-valence map' or 'capability table,' which would be helpful for an agent to interpret results.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, but the description adds value by explaining the parameter's purpose ('Action label to query expected valence for') and explicitly mentioning the list mode when the parameter is omitted, which goes beyond the schema 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: 'action → expected-valence map (EMA)' and explicitly mentions two usage modes: querying expected outcome for a given action or listing the entire capability table. This distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on other aspects of the cognitive architecture.

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 usage context by stating the two modes: query with an action parameter or list without. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use, though the distinct purpose is apparent from the tool name and context.

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