audio_recall

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the purpose without explaining what 'audio memories' means, how citations are generated, whether it returns audio or text, any rate limits, or required permissions. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the tool's name.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is severely under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations. There is no structure, such as separate clauses for purpose and usage. The brevity here is not efficient because it sacrifices necessary information.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, one required), no output schema, and no annotations, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain return values, parameter semantics, or any behavioral characteristics, leaving the agent with essentially only the tool's name to infer context.

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% and the description does not compensate. It never mentions 'query', 'top_k', 'customer_id', or 'filter_type'. The description provides zero information about what these parameters mean, how they interact, or how to construct a valid request.

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 function: 'Search audio memories and get audio-backed citations.' It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('audio memories'), and mentions the output ('audio-backed citations'), which distinguishes it from general tools like 'note' or 'audio_ingest'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'recall' or 'remember'.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, mention prerequisites, or give context for which scenarios are appropriate. This leaves the agent with no basis for selecting this tool over siblings like 'recall' or 'audio_ingest'.

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