audio_session_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Read', which implies a non-destructive operation, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool is idempotent, requires an active session, or has any side effects. It also doesn't mention any access requirements or error conditions. The minimal descriptor adds little beyond what the name implies.

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, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is so terse that it omits critical information. It is structurally clean but fails to earn its space by being informative; it saves words at the expense of clarity.

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 absence of an output schema, annotations, and parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what a 'workspace-contained guided calibration session' entails, what the returned data looks like, or what 'sessionFile' refers to. An agent would struggle to call this 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 0%, and the description makes no mention of parameters at all. The input schema shows two parameters ('home' and 'sessionFile') with only 'sessionFile' required, but the description gives no context on their format, purpose, or relationships. The agent is left entirely to infer parameter meaning from the schema, which is insufficient.

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 ('Read') and a specific resource ('workspace-contained guided calibration session'). It clearly indicates a read operation on a session, which distinguishes it from planning/execution tools. However, it does not explicitly mention 'status' despite the tool's name, and it doesn't name any sibling alternatives to further differentiate.

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 other session-related tools (e.g., audio_guided_session_execute, audio_session_advance_execute). It doesn't state prerequisites (e.g., that a session must already exist) or typical usage context (e.g., checking progress before advancing). There is no indication of when not to use it.

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