Live-Gespräch turn (voice loop with the user)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses the side effect (the app speaks and stores the reply), the ~50s blocking timeout, and the complete set of terminal/continuation statuses. Nothing about the blocking, mutating nature of the call is left to guess.

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?

Front-loads what the tool is and the core loop before the rules, and every clause carries information. It is a single dense paragraph, though, mixing mechanics and edge-case rules that would read faster as separated lines.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by enumerating the return statuses and what each implies. For a blocking, stateful conversational tool with three optional params, an agent has everything needed to drive the loop correctly.

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 baseline is 3; the description adds operational meaning with `reply` as the answer to the previous utterance and the rule to pass `talk_id` verbatim or omit it and send `agent_label` once. It stops short of adding format or length guidance for `agent_label` beyond the schema example.

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 verb and resource: a voice-conversation turn loop that speaks the agent's reply and returns the user's next utterance. No sibling tool touches voice/live conversation, and the description makes the loop role unmistakable.

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 branch-by-branch rules keyed to the returned status: answer and re-call on `utterance`, re-call immediately with no reply on `silence`, stop on `paused`/`ended`/`busy`. It also states the `talk_id` vs `agent_label` condition for start-instruction versus session-initiated starts.

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