tcai_emotion_appraise

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

Lacks annotations, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'with inertia' hinting at temporal dynamics, but does not explain what inertia implies, side effects, or requirements.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but it omits critical details; front-loads purpose but not parameter or behavioral info.

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 output schema and no param descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly; missing parameter semantics and behavioral context.

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 0% and description offers no explanation of the 4 parameters; agent cannot infer meaning of rewardSignal, novelty, threat, controllability from 'raw signals'.

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?

Description clearly states the tool appraises raw signals into PAD emotional space, a specific verb+resource pair, and distinguishes from siblings like tcai_curiosity by mentioning 'with inertia' and the PAD model.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives; purpose is implied but no conditions or exclusions are stated.

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