xinchao_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a compact description for prompt injection and is called at conversation start, which is useful. But it does not mention any side effects, permissions, or what the 'mental state' includes. For a read-like tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence that delivers all essential information: what it does, what it returns, and when it is called. It is front-loaded with the verb '获取' (get), and there is zero 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the purpose and usage context. It could briefly characterize what 'dynamic mental state' includes, but this is a minor omission given the simplicity of 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%. Per the rubric, the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is appropriate since there are none to document.

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 purpose: retrieving Airi's current dynamic mental state and returning a compact description for prompt injection. It is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like xinchao_status or xinchao_mood, so it loses a point for sibling distinction.

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 clear usage context by stating it is called once by default at the beginning of a conversation. This gives an explicit 'when to use' signal. It does not, however, discuss when not to use it or list alternatives, leaving a minor gap.

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