akai_tone

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the underlying OpenSMILE and output file type, but does not disclose whether the tool is destructive, requires network access, or has side effects. The input schema suggests CLI execution, but no details on permission needs or return behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the tool name and purpose. No redundant information. Every word is informative.

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?

Given the complexity of a CLI wrapper that likely produces an output file, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how the output .bftone file is handled (e.g., saved locally, returned as data), nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. The presence of no output schema increases the need for description clarity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for 'args' (CLI arguments) and 'stdin' (optional stdin). The description adds context that the tool uses OpenSMILE, which hints at the nature of arguments, but does not elaborate beyond schema. Baseline is 3 as the schema already provides adequate parameter meaning.

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 that the tool extracts tone, emotion, and rhythm from speech using OpenSMILE, and produces a .bftone file. This is specific and matches the tool name 'tone'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like akai_transcribe or akai_speech_loop, which could overlap in purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It lacks information about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate versus others.

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