Check tone

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds that the tool returns deterministic axes and an LLM-refinement prompt, and that it flags deviations from baseline or target register, providing useful 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 three sentences, front-loads the core function, and avoids unnecessary details while covering key optional behaviors.

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?

With 4 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, optional baseline/target, and output components (axes + prompt). The omission of channel parameter info is minor given its optional and possibly context-dependent nature.

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%, but the description explains text (outgoing message), baseline_messages (prior messages), and target_register (e.g., direct, warm). However, the channel parameter is not explained, so compensation is partial.

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 scores a message on directness/warmth/urgency (0-100) with optional baseline comparison, distinguishing it from sibling 'check' tools like check_rumination or check_sycophancy which analyze 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 implies use for tone analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_sycophancy or rewrite_outgoing, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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