tcai_emotion_appraise

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'with inertia' but does not explain what that implies (e.g., statefulness, temporal dependence). There is no disclosure of side effects, required state, or output shape.

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, short sentence which is concise, but it may be too brief to convey necessary detail for correct usage. It is not verbose but sacrifices completeness.

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 annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'inertia' means, what the output looks like, or any behavioral side effects. For a tool likely involving stateful processing, this is insufficient.

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 add meaning beyond the parameter names. It refers to 'raw signals' but does not map them to the four specific parameters (rewardSignal, novelty, threat, controllability), leaving interpretation to their names alone.

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: appraising raw signals into the PAD emotional space (Mehrabian) with inertia. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like tcai_curiosity or tcai_development.

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 or any prerequisites. It simply describes what it does without contextual usage cues.

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