converse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and adds useful behavioral detail: it 'Automatically starts browser interface if not running' and imposes a conversation-mode rule. It does not explain timeout failure behavior or the wait_for_response=false case, but the schema covers the timeout formula and the core behavior is disclosed.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by operational context and an important protocol note. There is no wasted content and each 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 plus schema are sufficient for selecting and invoking the tool: purpose, auto-start behavior, required timeout calculation, and a conversation protocol rule are all present. It lacks explicit cross-references to sibling tools, but the tool is simple enough that this does not create a major gap.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the schema already provides detailed timeout calculation guidance and wait_for_response semantics.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Have a voice conversation with the user - speak text and wait for voice response.' This distinguishes it from siblings like speak (which likely only outputs speech) and get_voice_input (which likely only captures input). The automatic browser start is additional scope context.

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 clear context for use: it is for voice conversation and includes a protocol rule: 'Once you start using converse, first use text AND then converse for all responses in this conversation.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the purpose and protocol give enough guidance for selection.

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