listen

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the key retry mechanism ('if it returns heard: false ... just call it again') and sets expectations about silence ('Never fill the silence'). However, it does not mention whether the call blocks for the full max_wait or other potential side effects.

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 succinct and well-structured. It opens with the primary purpose, follows with the usage context, and closes with the retry behavior—all in a few sentences without repetition or filler.

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 simple listening tool with a single optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential operational aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how to interpret the return value. Given the output schema exists, the lack of detailed return documentation is acceptable.

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 provides a description for max_wait ('Seconds to wait this call'), so the parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, 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 tool's core function: 'Hear whatever the candidate says next'. It uses a specific verb ('hear') and resource ('candidate'), and differentiates itself from question-asking tools by noting it is 'not tied to any question'.

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 clear usage context by labeling this as the 'conversational channel' and giving example utterances. It also gives an implicit alternative by stating it's 'not tied to any question', suggesting other tools handle questions. It further explains the retry behavior when receiving 'heard: false'.

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