reachy_check_microphone

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

Annotations are absent, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that a short audio sample will be recorded, which is useful, but it does not explain what happens afterward—whether the sample is played back, analyzed, or simply used to return a pass/fail indication. The criterion for 'working' is left undefined.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the action and target and contains no filler. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's core function.

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?

The tool is simple—one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations—and the description covers the main action and method clearly. However, because there is no output schema, the description should clarify what type of result the agent can expect (e.g., boolean, audio metrics, or a report), and that is missing. This creates a moderate gap for an agent trying to interpret the tool's response.

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 already documents the only parameter, `duration`, with a description and default value (100% coverage). The description's phrase 'short sample' loosely aligns with the duration parameter but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') with a clear resource ('the robot's microphone') and the method ('by recording a short sample'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reachy_check_camera and reachy_play_audio by targeting microphone health specifically.

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 intended use is implied by the description—verify the microphone by sampling—but there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives such as reachy_list_audio or reachy_play_audio, and no exclusions are mentioned.

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