bip_speak

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that audio is played and animation is synchronized to the audio duration, but never states whether the call blocks until speech completes, whether it can be interrupted, what happens if audio fails, or what platform prerequisites exist (English only, Mac only is mentioned but not why).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the primary action and appends the animation behavior. No filler, though the two ideas (speech and rig synchronization) are compressed into one line without structure.

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 5-parameter mutation-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 80% of parameters undocumented, the description leaves too much unknown. The most decision-relevant fact for an agent — whether the call waits for the audio to finish — is absent.

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 coverage is only 20%, so the description needs to compensate. It does imply that gaze and blink are driven by this tool, giving indirect meaning to blink/gaze_x/gaze_y, but it never explains the coordinate ranges, units, or defaults for the gaze integers, nor what the emotion choices do to the delivery.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ("Speak English text aloud on Mac") plus the distinctive side effect of lip/gaze/blink synchronization, which clearly separates it from bip_get_status or bip_set_state. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating how it differs from bip_play_timeline, which could also drive animation.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among bip_set_state, bip_play_timeline, or bip_get_status. The agent must infer that this is the tool for voiced dialogue rather than for silent posing or timeline playback.

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