vocametrix_classify_stuttering

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses async processing and automatic polling, and lists return types. However, it omits details like required audio format constraints (beyond 'WAV' from schema), potential error conditions, or rate limits. 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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading purpose and output, then explaining behavioral trait (auto-polling). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 and average complexity (async polling), the description covers purpose, output, and auto-polling behavior. It lacks explicit constraints like audio length limits (implied 30-120s) and error handling, but is mostly sufficient for agent invocation.

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 adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it does not explain polling interval or timeout semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 classifies stuttering disfluency patterns in speech recordings, listing specific output types (repetitions, prolongations, blocks) and metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tools which focus on other voice metrics or therapy tasks.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vocametrix_assess_pronunciation or vocametrix_calculate_* tools. It implicitly describes the async behavior but does not specify conditions where this tool is preferable.

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