sensor_audio

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does reveal the internal transformation stages (waveform, mel, latent), but it omits key behaviors such as simulation capability (simulate flag), source selection (mic_0), and any side effects or output format. This is insufficient for a tool with such a sparse description.

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 compact phrase that is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and pipeline. It uses an arrow notation for conciseness and contains no filler or redundancy. Though very brief, it is appropriately sized for the limited information it conveys.

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 nested input schema with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far too minimal. It fails to explain the return value, simulation defaults, or how the parameters affect encoding, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The pipeline description adds general context (waveform to latent) but does not explain how individual parameters like frequency, durationMs, or sampleRate fit into that pipeline, so it adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool as audio encoding via the pipeline 'Waveform → Mel → Latent', and the 'sensor_audio' name with sibling context (sensor_visual, sensor_olfactory) distinguishes it. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'encodes') and reads as a noun phrase, so it does not fully meet the 'specific verb+resource' standard.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sensor_fuse or sensor_process. There are no mentioned exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool comparisons, leaving the agent without usage context.

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