Run a behavior

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: hardware vs sim getup differences, no-op semantics, timing ranges, busy-flag behavior, battery/health gating, and the quack exception. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond a generic 'runs a behavior' statement.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The core action and enum list lead, followed by exception notes and monitoring guidance. Every clause adds actionable information, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 behavior tool, this is nearly complete: it defines all behavior outcomes, timing, and follow-up monitoring. The only gap is that it doesn't describe the tool's own return value (e.g., immediate acknowledgment vs completion status), which matters since there is no output schema.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the schema only says 'Which behavior to run.' The description adds critical per-enum semantics for getup, pickup, sit/stand no-ops, and the fact that quack is free. This substantially enriches parameter understanding beyond the enum names alone.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('named built-in behavior'), then enumerates all seven behaviors. It distinguishes itself from duck_walk by saying it is battery/health-gated 'like walking' and from duck_monitor by instructing the agent to call it afterward.

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 clear operational context: sit/stand are no-ops in the same posture, scripted moves have a duration, and duck_monitor must be polled to see when 'busy' clears. It doesn't explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the behavior-vs-walk distinction is implied and the monitoring follow-up is explicit.

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