buddy_talk

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: output wrapped in <BUDDY_DISPLAY> tags, mandatory exact relay, personality drift consequences, and streak-tracking mechanics. This level of detail compensates entirely for missing annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action. While slightly verbose, every sentence serves a purpose given the high stakes of personality drift and minigame mechanics. Could be trimmed slightly but remains effective.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains the output format (tags) and how to handle it. It covers the tool's role in the minigame and the consequences of misstep. Missing explicit return structure details, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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 only parameter 'context' is described in schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining it influences response selection and providing examples ('debugging', 'stuck'), giving practical context beyond the schema's generic description.

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 'Triggers the buddy to speak' - a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'pet_buddy' and 'deactivate_buddy_interact' by focusing on speech output and the critical relay rule.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you want the buddy to speak. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools like 'still_point' or 'reroll_buddy'. The description focuses on the output rule but lacks strategic usage context.

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