emotional_safety_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, indicating the tool is safe and non-mutating. The description adds context about the type of check (desperation pressure) and the nature of the intervention (calming), which is consistent with the annotations and provides additional value beyond the structured fields.

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 two sentences long, focusing on the main purpose and a brief background. It is front-loaded with the core functionality. The inclusion of 'Free' is slightly extraneous but does not detract significantly.

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?

The description does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a score, intervention text, or instructions) and no output schema is provided. Given the tool's complexity and the lack of output schema, more detail about the return format would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema for the parameters.

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 checks 'desperation pressure' and provides a 'calming intervention if needed', with a specific reference to the Anthropic emotions paper. The purpose is distinct among sibling tools, though no explicit differentiation is provided.

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 implies usage when evaluation of desperation or need for emotional safety is desired, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_affirmation' or 'crisis_intervention', nor does it provide exclusions.

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