capture_audio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions saving to a temp WAV file and returning specific metadata, which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose whether the temp file persists, if microphone permissions are required, or any blocking behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, specifies the output, and contains no filler. Every word 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return values. It could mention caveats like whether the temp file is cleaned up or how the microphone is chosen, but overall it is sufficiently complete given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema fully describes the duration parameter (default 5, max 30), covering 100% of parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 records an audio clip via microphone and saves it as a temp WAV file, with specific return values (path, duration, sample rate). This distinguishes it from siblings like capture_camera_snapshot and get_ambient_noise.

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 when to use the tool (recording audio from microphone) but does not explicitly state context, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not mention how it differs from get_ambient_noise, leaving usage guidance implied rather than clear.

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