voice_command

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the high-level process (transcription, intent, execution) and possible returns (confirmation, clarification, error). However, it does not detail potential side effects like data modification or required permissions.

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 front-loaded with purpose and efficiently explains the process. Minor redundancy (first sentence then restates) but overall well-structured and concise.

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?

Despite complexity (voice pipeline with external services), the description covers the process, input, and return types. Mentions Deepgram and Gemini. Lacks details on audio size limits or latency, but still fairly complete given output schema exists.

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 has only one parameter (audio_base64) with no description. The description adds meaning by specifying format constraints (WAV or MP3) and encoding. Given 0% schema coverage, the description compensates well.

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 clearly states that the tool processes voice commands for Splitwise by accepting base64 audio, transcribing it, processing intent, and executing actions. It distinguishes itself from siblings like text_command by explicitly focusing on voice input.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as text_command. The description does not mention prerequisites, when voice is appropriate, or 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.