wave_voice_converse

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does this well by stating the input format, the output format, the side effect of binding the agent to a room, and the headless execution model. It does not mention file overwrites, auth requirements, or blocking/timeout behavior, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 dense sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The main behavior is front-loaded, followed by the format details, and the closing 'No browser, no WebRTC' crisply sets expectations.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the inputs, the output destination, and the environment constraint. It does not explain return semantics, error conditions, or whether the call blocks until the reply is ready, but the primary contractual details an agent needs to invoke it are present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by specifying the exact audio formats: 16-bit LE 48 kHz PCM input (mono or stereo) and raw 16-bit LE 48 kHz stereo PCM output. This goes beyond the terse schema descriptions and helps an agent prepare correct inputs and interpret the output.

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 uses a specific verb ('Drive') and names a concrete resource (the WAVE voice agent), then spells out the exact flow: bind to a room, send a caller WAV, receive a spoken reply PCM. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which describe audio-in/audio-out headless conversation.

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?

It clearly establishes the context: use this for a headless conversation with the WAVE voice agent, with 'No browser, no WebRTC' as an explicit boundary. It does not name alternative sibling tools or say when not to use it, but the context is specific enough to guide selection.

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