check_vocal_clarity

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating measurement, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that the clean reference is the spoken words and how to read the two-result (alone vs in-mix) outcome, but it does not disclose return format, the cost of rendering the master for the in-mix check, or timing behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is measured before the decision guidance. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 four-parameter read-only diagnostic with no output schema, the description covers purpose, method, and how to act on the result, which is enough for correct invocation. It is slightly thin on what the returned values look like (no output schema exists), but the interpretation guidance largely compensates.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters (track, in_mix, end_bar, start_bar) documented in the schema including defaults and the 1-based fractional bar convention. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (a robot vocal's word intelligibility) and the method (STOI against clean spoken words), so the agent knows exactly what is measured. It is clearly distinct from sibling diagnostics like check_tuning, check_ending, or show_spectrogram without needing to open any schema.

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?

Explicitly says to 'use it instead of guessing' and provides interpretation rules (clear alone but not in mix = mix burying it; unclear alone = change words/notes/voice/style). It gives strong context but does not name alternative tools (e.g. analyze_audio, measure_tracks) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the full when/when-not/alternatives bar.

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