xinchao_mood

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clearly states the tool retrieves a brief mood/energy description, which implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose the output format, data source, or any edge cases. For a zero-parameter tool, this is minimally acceptable but not rich in behavioral detail.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('获取') and resource ('心情/能量简短描述'). 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 the tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and use case. It could be improved by noting what kind of brief description is returned or how it relates to sibling tools, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed since the input schema is empty.

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 a specific verb '获取' (get) and a clear resource '心情/能量简短描述' (brief mood/energy description), and it explicitly states the intended use case '回复前的情绪判断' (emotional assessment before replying). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like xinchao_context or xinchao_event, which presumably handle different aspects.

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 a clear when-to-use signal: '适合回复前的情绪判断' (suitable for emotional assessment before replying). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for a simple tool with no parameters, this context is sufficient.

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