sensor_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the encoding pipeline and does not address side effects, resource requirements (e.g., microphone access), read-only nature, or output details. This is insufficient for safe and effective tool use.

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 (one line). While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail for a tool with nested parameters and a complex pipeline. The structure could be improved by adding brief parameter context and expected output.

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 (nested object with 6 sub-properties, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It omits critical information such as return type, parameter behavior, and usage prerequisites, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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?

The schema describes all parameters (100% coverage) with descriptions for 'simulate' and 'frequency'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the pipeline overview, so it neither enhances nor detracts from the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'A-JEPA Audio Encoding (Waveform → Mel → Latent)' clearly states the tool's function: encoding audio into a latent representation via mel spectrogram. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling sensors (e.g., sensor_visual, sensor_olfactory) by specifying the audio modality and processing pipeline. However, it could be more explicit about the verb (e.g., 'encode') and the output format.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., sensor_olfactory, sensor_visual). It lacks contextual cues such as prerequisites, constraints, or examples, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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