comprobar_pronunciacion

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions comparing two recordings but does not describe the output (e.g., boolean, score), side effects, or prerequisites. This is minimal transparency beyond the tool's obvious purpose.

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 filler. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it is not maximally effective for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations.

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 tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is insufficient. It fails to explain what the tool returns, the role of 'concepto', or any special requirements, making it incomplete for practical 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly maps 'dos grabaciones' to audio_a/audio_b and 'dos palabras' to palabra_a/palabra_b, but it does not clarify the 'concepto' parameter or explicitly reference parameter names, leaving gaps.

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 the tool's function: 'Comprueba si el alumno produce el contraste entre dos palabras, comparando sus dos grabaciones entre sí.' This is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like 'comprobar_escucha' by focusing on pronunciation contrast.

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 implies the use case: when you need to check if a student can produce a contrast between two words. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. 'Comprueba si el alumno produce el contraste...' is a strong indicator of when to invoke it.

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