vocametrix_calculate_voice_range_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool calculates from a glissando recording and returns specific outputs, but does not mention error handling, performance, or side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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 with no fluff. First sentence states the action and input, second states the output and use cases. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 clarify the output structure. It mentions 'returns frequency range... and intensity range with interpretation' but is vague on format. Schema covers parameters well, but the description could better specify the return 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats that age/gender are used for interpretation but adds no new meaning beyond the schema definitions. No additional parameter details are provided.

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 it calculates the Voice Range Profile from a glissando recording, listing outputs (frequency and intensity range with interpretation) and use cases. It distinguishes from sibling calculate tools by specifying the unique VRP output and input type.

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 mentions it is 'useful for singers and voice rehabilitation assessment,' providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly compare to other calculate tools or state when not to use it, missing explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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