vector_animate

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Play a named animation.' It does not disclose whether the tool blocks until completion, what happens to ongoing robot behavior, durability of the animation, or any side effects beyond the action itself.

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 with no filler. Every word contributes directly to the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally sufficient for basic invocation. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral context, and the absence of an output schema means the agent gets no hint about return values or failure modes.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters and already provides an example identifier, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating that the animation is named; it does not clarify where valid names come from or how the identifier is interpreted.

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 clear verb ('Play'), a specific resource ('a named animation'), and the target ('on the robot'). It clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like vector_drive or vector_say, though it does not explicitly contrast it with visually similar animation-related actions.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent is not told whether this is for one-shot effects, looping animations, or how it relates to other action tools like vector_look or vector_head.

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