listen

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: the recording is deleted afterwards, Whisper runs locally on CPU, and transcription takes roughly the audio duration in 30-second windows. The ephemeral nature is also consistent with readOnlyHint, so there is no contradiction.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, ephemeral recording, prerequisite, and performance characteristics. There is no filler or repetition.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, persistence, and latency well. It could more explicitly state that the result is the transcription text, but 'transcribe it' strongly implies the return value.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents seconds, source, and language well. The description only reinforces the fixed-time aspect and adds no new meaning for the parameters, so a 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 states a specific action: record audio for a fixed time and transcribe it with Whisper. This is clear and resource-specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'transcribe' tool, so the differentiation is left largely implicit.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Start playback before calling') and implies the tool is for live capture. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over the sibling 'transcribe' tool or when not to use it, so the routing decision is mostly inferred.

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