listen

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does usefully disclose the beep/vibration cues, waiting for speech, and stopping after a pause. It still omits other behavioral details such as what happens on silence, permission requirements, and how max_seconds bounds the interaction.

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 purpose and then provides parameter-specific notes in reasonably compact form. The default environment variable notes are useful rather than redundant, though the formatting is slightly inconsistent.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers enough to understand the main recording flow. It is still incomplete regarding max_seconds, silence/error behavior, and any permission or device-specific constraints.

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 0%, so the description must supply parameter meaning. It explains mic choices, language format and the wait_for_speech behavior, but leaves max_seconds entirely unexplained even though it is a schema parameter.

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 verb and result: listen to the user's voice and return spoken content as text. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling voice tools such as voice_command or voice_tap.

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 purpose implies when to use it: capturing speech as text rather than executing a voice command. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance or direct comparison to alternatives like voice_command or speak.

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