sound

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

With annotations only declaring readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=false, the description carries the behavioral load and does so well by disclosing the stop-action report: length, peak and RMS in dBFS, clipped samples, exact-silence gaps, and any detected problems. It omits latency, resource cost, and what happens if stop is never called, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 content is dense and largely earns its place, but it is delivered as one long semicolon-chained sentence that is hard to parse on first read ('then what's wrong, if anything... as a program that falls behind leaves'). The start/make-sound/stop workflow is front-loaded, yet the structure obscures rather than supports the content.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden, describing both the measurement report and the failure conditions (gaps, clipping, silence). The main missing piece is the relationship to start_session/stop_session and whether the session lifecycle is managed elsewhere.

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 100%, so the schema baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'session' is tied to start_session, and 'gap' is explained as the silence threshold that separates intended distinct sounds rather than just a millisecond range. That is genuine semantic value beyond the schema's numeric bounds.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it records audio during a session, driven by start/stop actions. It is understandable that this is an audio-capture tool, but it never distinguishes itself from the similarly-named siblings 'record' or 'program_output', leaving the agent to guess which capture tool applies.

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?

It spells out the required sequence (action start, make the sound, action stop) and gives concrete usage advice for the gap parameter ('sounds meant to be apart need a gap longer than the silence between them'). It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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