vocametrix_calculate_jitter_shimmer

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It mentions the tool computes jitter and shimmer and associates elevated values with dysphonia, but does not disclose if it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. Basic transparency is present.

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, well-structured sentences: first defines the operation, second provides normal thresholds and clinical significance. No unnecessary information.

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 should explain return format; it mentions normal ranges (e.g., 'normal jitter < 1.04%') but does not explicitly state that these are output fields. Otherwise, it covers input type and clinical context well. Slight gap in specifying output structure.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter, describing it as 'Absolute path to a WAV file'. Description adds context about sustained vowel requirement and clinical meaning but does not significantly enhance the schema's parameter definition. Baseline score of 3 applied.

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?

Description clearly states it calculates jitter (PPQ5) and shimmer from a sustained vowel, using specific clinical terms. It distinguishes from sibling tools like calculate_cpp or calculate_avqi by naming the exact parameters.

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 on sustained vowel recordings and provides normal ranges for clinical context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over other acoustic measure tools or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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