tcai_curiosity

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

Describes the computation algorithmically but does not disclose behavioral traits like side effects, resource usage, or state modifications. Without annotations, the description should clarify read-only or safe behavior; it only mentions defaults.

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 paragraph that front-loads purpose and mechanism efficiently, though technical jargon may reduce readability. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly more structured.

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?

No output schema or annotation, and the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., a numeric value or structure). Also lacks mention of side effects or performance considerations, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 covers the sole parameter with description including default. The tool description repeats that default information, adding no new meaning beyond schema, keeping at baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states it computes an intrinsic reward/curiosity signal via prediction error, with specific mechanism (RNDCuriosity port). Distinguishes from siblings like tcai_metrics or tcai_emotion_appraise by focusing on novelty-driven exploration.

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 this tool vs alternatives among many tcai tools. The description implies use for exploration but does not specify exclusions or comparative context.

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