voice_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say the target device must have Voice Access listening, that the effect is delivered as audio and may not be confirmed, or that some listed commands ('tap 5', 'stop listening', 'go home') mutate device state irreversibly. The phrase 'from the PC speakers' hints at the mechanism but no consequences or prerequisites are spelled out.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, which is good, but the ten-item example list consumes most of the text and includes items like 'open WhatsApp' that overlap conceptually with sibling `open_app`, risking misrouting. A shorter representative set would earn more.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition leaves key gaps: it does not say what the call returns or how to tell whether the spoken command actually took effect, and it omits the meaning of `settle_seconds`. Given the tool acts on a live device, that is not enough.

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 document both parameters. It gives a useful sense of what `command` should contain via examples, but never states whether the string must match a valid Voice Access phrase, and it says nothing at all about `settle_seconds` (default 1.5) or what that delay controls.

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 (speak a Voice Access command aloud through the PC speakers) and gives a concrete list of valid command strings, so an agent can tell it is a command-injection tool rather than a plain TTS call. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling `speak` or `voice_tap`, which are the most confusable neighbors.

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 example commands implicitly convey when the tool applies (issuing Voice Access actions to a listening device), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. Nothing says to prefer `tap_element`/`scroll` over voice equivalents, or to prefer `speak` for non-command audio.

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