vocametrix_assess_pronunciation_with_pitch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returns (accuracy/fluency/prosody scores, pitch statistics) but omits side effects, authorization needs, file format constraints (beyond WAV), or typical response size. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose: the first sentence defines the action and enrichment, the second explains the benefit. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description provides the main return types (scores, pitch stats) and hints at use cases. It lacks detailed output structure but is sufficient for an assessment tool. Could mention that audio must be WAV (already in parameter) and optional defaults. Reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 each parameter having a clear business-level description. The tool description adds context about what the parameters enable (pitch analysis) but does not refine parameter syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value.

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 explicitly states 'Pronunciation assessment enriched with per-word F0 (pitch) contours', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from the sibling 'vocametrix_assess_pronunciation' by highlighting the added pitch analysis, making it clear what this tool uniquely offers.

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 usage for tonal language analysis and prosody coaching, suggesting when pitch matters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., basic pronunciation without pitch) or directly name the alternative sibling. The guidance is clear but could be more direct.

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