audio_capture_start

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

The description is consistent with readOnlyHint=false, and adds the useful detail that the output is a WAV of the mixer output. However, it omits behavior an agent would want: what happens if a capture is already running, whether the file is finalized only on audio_capture_stop, and any overwrite/auto-numbering behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource and scope come first, and nothing redundant is included.

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?

For a one-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose adequately. It is slightly incomplete regarding the capture lifecycle (how to stop, whether a capture can be started twice), but nothing critical is missing for invocation.

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% for the single optional 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantics about the path or auto-numbering beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (start), resource (audio capture), and format/source (WAV of mixer output), which cleanly separates it from audio_capture_stop and audio_capture_status. It does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings, so it falls short of 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., mixer must be active), and no mention of the related stop/status tools an agent would need to complete the capture workflow. The description only says what it does, not when to reach for it.

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