sensor_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behaviors. It only sketches a processing pipeline (Waveform → Mel → Latent) but does not mention whether it captures from a real microphone, whether simulation is the default, what the output looks like, or any side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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 and front-loaded, using a compact pipeline notation. It packs the core transformation into one line, but sentences are not sacrificed; this is appropriately terse for a simple sensor tool.

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 has a nested input object with six properties, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-line description is inadequate. It fails to explain the return value, the meaning of the parameters, or the context in which audio encoding is needed, leaving agents under-informed.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. Although schema description coverage is reported as 100%, the schema itself leaves several nested properties (source, channels, durationMs, sampleRate) without descriptions. The baseline of 3 for high coverage applies, but the description does not compensate for those gaps.

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 indicates the tool converts audio waveforms into a latent representation via mel spectrogram, specific to audio and distinct from sibling sensors. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an active verb construction, slightly reducing directness.

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_visual or sensor_olfactory. The schema's simulate flag is not explained in the description, nor are any prerequisites or use cases mentioned.

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