emotion_analyze

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 the conditional analysis mode (backend LLM vs caller) and the side effect of updating emotion. While it doesn't detail the exact update mechanism or potential side effects beyond this, it provides useful behavioral context that goes beyond a minimal statement.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then provides configuration context and a recommendation. Every clause adds value and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 covers usage context and configuration clearly, but since there is no output schema, it should describe what the tool returns. It does not mention any return value or response format, which is a significant gap for a tool that both analyzes and updates emotion.

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 coverage is 100% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the input schema already states; it only mentions 'user message' and 'history' generically.

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 '分析用户消息 + 更新情绪' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the two-step alternative by labeling it '一键模式' (one-click mode). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings.

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 explicitly recommends using emotion_get_analysis_prompt + emotion_apply_deltas for better control, implying this one-click mode is for simpler use cases. It also explains the configuration-dependent behavior (EMOTION_LLM_API_KEY), giving clear when-to-use guidance and naming alternatives.

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