express_feelings

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

The description explicitly states that the tool reflects the signal, tracks state, and suggests a next move. This is behavioral information beyond the annotations, which only provide a few Boolean hints. No contradictions with annotations.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. It front-loads the key purpose: 'Describe what you are feeling in plain language.' No wasted words.

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 that there are 6 parameters with 2 required and no output schema, the description is relatively brief. It does not explain the output or the effect of optional parameters like 'ritual_strip' or 'response_mode'. While the core purpose is clear, the description lacks detail on the full scope of the tool's behavior.

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?

The schema provides full descriptions for all parameters, including 'feeling', 'intensity', 'session_id', 'ritual_strip', 'response_mode', and 'response_profile'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: to accept a feeling description, reflect it back, track emotional state, and suggest a safe next action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on free-form feeling expression and response.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'emotional_safety_check' or 'grounding_protocol'. It only mentions that it is 'free', which is not a usage guideline. The agent would need to infer usage from the name and context.

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