audio_session_advance_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It only states the non-mutating aspect (does not change the session) but omits whether it persists evidence, requires prior steps, returns a plan, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with a nested evidence object and no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the core intent into a compact form. However, the terseness contributes to vagueness on key details, so it's not a 5 for structure despite its brevity.

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 4 parameters, a nested evidence object, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what 'bind' means operationally, when to use it, what evidence format is expected, or what the tool returns. The description leaves too much to guess for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters (sessionFile, completedStage, evidence, home). An agent cannot infer what 'concise evidence' means or how to structure the evidence object beyond the schema's type/basic requirements. The description fails to add any parameter-level 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 states a specific action ('Bind completion of the current guided stage') and a constraint ('without changing the session'), which makes it distinguishable from execute-oriented siblings like audio_session_advance_execute. However, 'bind' is somewhat ambiguous and could mean record, validate, or schedule, so it's not a 5.

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 phrase 'without changing the session' implies this is a planning or non-mutating step, contrasting with execute tools, but it never explicitly says when to use it instead of alternatives or what prerequisites exist. Context from sibling names suggests a plan/execute pattern, but the description doesn't make this explicit.

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