vocametrix_calculate_avqi

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only calculation without destructive side effects, but does not explicitly state safety or computational properties. The thresholds are provided, but behavioral traits like statelessness are assumed.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description covers input requirements and score interpretation well, but without an output schema, it does not specify the return format (e.g., numeric score). For a calculation tool, this is a gap that could be improved.

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% with parameter descriptions already present. The description adds value by explaining the optionality of connected speech and the default version, as well as clinical thresholds beyond the schema.

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 calculates the Acoustic Voice Quality Index (AVQI), a specific clinically validated dysphonia score. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the metric and provides thresholds for dysphonia indication.

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 explicitly requires a sustained vowel recording and mentions connected speech as optional for improved accuracy. However, it does not provide explicit when-not or alternative tools for other voice metrics, though the context of siblings implies differentiation.

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