vector_say

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. It states that the robot speaks text but remains silent on key aspects such as whether the action is blocking, asynchronous, dependent on robot state, or returns any status. This is a minimal behavioral description with no extra context.

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 zero unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and conveys the essential action without redundancy.

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 tool with a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action but omits important context such as the return value, potential side effects, or whether the action blocks. Given the simplicity, this is adequate but not fully complete. The agent might need to know if the call is asynchronous or returns a success indicator.

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 already fully documents the single parameter (text) with a description: 'Text for the robot to speak.' The tool description essentially repeats this information. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the action (speak), the resource (text), and the subject (Anki Vector robot). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all about movement, sensing, or state changes. A single sentence is sufficient to convey the tool's purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent decide between this and other robot-control tools. The agent has to infer from the name and description alone.

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