emotion_get_status

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the data categories returned, including favorability, libido/aggression, emotional tags, conversation turns, and full reference table. The verb '获取' implies read-only behavior, but it does not address possible errors or auth requirements; still, for a simple getter, this is adequate.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and the key output components. Every element contributes informational value with no filler or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description provides sufficient context by naming the major return categories. The phrase '完整参考表' is somewhat vague, but overall the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to consider it.

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 input schema fully covers the only parameter (user_id) with the Chinese description '用户唯一标识'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline applies; the tool description adds no extra parameter context, but none is needed for a single self-explanatory identifier.

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') and resource ('用户完整情绪档案') and enumerates the exact contents: favorability, libido/aggression, emotion tags, conversation turns, and a full reference table. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like emotion_get_panel or emotion_get_emotion_prompt by focusing on the complete status profile.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description implies retrieval of the full emotional status, but it does not state contexts where alternatives (e.g., emotion_get_panel) would be more appropriate, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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