anrufbeantworter_audio

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that a file is written to FRITZ_DOWNLOAD_DIR and that the message's "heard" state is NOT changed, but says nothing about permissions or remote-access prerequisites, filename/path resolution, or what happens if the message index is invalid.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, with the notable non-side-effect placed second. 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is low-complexity with only two parameters. However, for a tool that writes to disk, the undocumented 'ab' parameter and absent error/prerequisite information leave meaningful gaps.

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 had to compensate and largely does not. "Nachricht" is inferable from "AB-Nachricht", but the 'ab' parameter (which answering-machine mailbox, default 0) is never mentioned, leaving a required-shaped integer completely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb ("Lädt") plus resource ("AB-Nachricht als WAV") and the destination (FRITZ_DOWNLOAD_DIR), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'anrufbeantworter' (listing) tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a message's audio. The sentence "Markiert nichts als gehört" hints that a different tool/step is needed to mark as heard, but no alternative is named and no preconditions are stated.

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