emotion_apply_decay

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions the triggering action and automaticity, but does not describe side effects, reversibility, or the impact on emotion state. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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, short sentence that front-loads the action and provides a useful qualifier. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simplicity—zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations—the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks crucial context about what time decay does to emotions or whether the operation is safe, which would be needed for confident invocation.

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 is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, and the baseline for no-param tools is 4.

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 a specific action—manually triggering time decay—and notes it is usually automatic, which gives a distinct purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like emotion_apply_deltas, though the term 'decay' is distinct enough.

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 phrase '通常自动执行' (usually automatic execution) implies this tool is for manual override when automatic decay has not occurred. It provides some context for when to use it but lacks explicit exclusions or references to alternative tools.

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