memory_mood

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only view operation and names the reported dimensions, but does not disclose permissions, data scope, rate limits, privacy behavior, or whether it triggers any side effects.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose, followed by a compact list of reported aspects. There is 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?

The description explains the kinds of outputs an agent will get, which is useful because there is no output schema. However, with no annotations and only implied usage guidance, it does not fully cover behavioral context such as safety, permissions, or when this tool should be preferred over related memory tools.

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 100%, so both parameters (days and profile) are already documented with defaults. The description does not add syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "查看近期情绪轨迹" (view recent emotional trajectory), and lists the concrete aspects it reports. It is clearly distinct from general memory recall/list tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools.

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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as memory_recall, memory_list, or memory_stats. Usage is only implicitly suggested by the name and description, with no exclusions or prerequisites.

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