tcai_emotion_appraise

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits fully. It mentions 'inertia' implying statefulness or temporal dependency, but does not explain side effects, return format, or whether it modifies internal state. The absence of explicit behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

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, tightly packed sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and the key behavioral nuance (inertia), making it highly efficient.

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, annotations, and parameter descriptions, this tool description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, how parameters interact, or what 'inertia' entails operationally. The agent would struggle to correctly invoke and interpret the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining the four parameters. However, it only refers to 'raw signals' without mapping to threat, novelty, rewardSignal, or controllability. Parameter meanings are left to name inference, which is insufficient for an agent.

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 uses the specific verb 'Appraise' and clearly states the transformation into PAD emotional space (Mehrabian), which distinguishes it from sibling tcai tools focused on memory, curiosity, or meta-cognition. The inclusion of 'with inertia' further indicates a unique temporal aspect.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without specifying scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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