Voice setup

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

Annotations already indicate mutability and idempotency, but the description adds valuable specifics: existing installs are reused, an existing model is symlinked rather than re-downloaded, it uses brew install, downloads only once, never uninstalls or changes other things, and installation may continue in the background. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed but every sentence carries necessary operational information: what is checked, what installation does, reuse behavior, user-consent requirement, safety constraints, and background-install handling. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, safety boundaries, invocation sequence, and the background-install scenario. The only missing detail is the full set of possible return statuses, but the mention of the INSTALLING report is enough to guide the agent.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches the single install parameter substantially: false is the default and means check-only, true means install missing packages and download the model, and true requires prior user consent. This goes well beyond the schema's brief parameter description.

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 purpose: check for and optionally install the dependencies that speak_and_listen needs, naming the exact components (text-to-speech, SoX, whisper.cpp, model). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling speak_and_listen by being the setup tool rather than the communication tool.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: call with install=false first and report missing items; only call with install=true after user agreement. It also explains the background-install behavior and tells the agent to wait and re-check, which is strong operational guidance.

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