SuperClonica text to speech

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and side-effect behavior are covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the three returned values, including per-window audio seconds remaining, though it does not elaborate on auth requirements or response formatting.

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 sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the resource being described. Every element earns its place by naming the plan, allowance, and remaining quota.

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 zero-parameter, read-only usage endpoint, the description covers the essential return values and is sufficient for an agent to understand what it provides. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the window length or response format, but no output schema exists and the current detail is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Schema coverage is trivially complete, and the description does not need to compensate for missing parameter details.

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 identifies a specific resource: the API key's plan, audio allowance per window, and remaining seconds. It is clear what information is retrieved, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb and does not directly compare itself to the sibling tools.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to call it, when not to call it, or how it relates to alternatives like speak or list_voices. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and return content.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, non-open-world operation, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: which voice collections are accessible, what fields are matched, and that every voice supports 31 languages but sounds most natural in its recorded language.

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 the core search action and scope, then useful detail about matching and language behavior. There is no filler and each sentence contributes information.

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 two-parameter search tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers what is searchable and how matching works. It does not describe the return shape or whether results are paginated, which is a minor gap given the presence of a limit parameter.

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 only 50%, with query described but limit undocumented. The description compensates well for query by explaining that names in any language, tags, and descriptions are matched, and what happens when query is omitted, but it does not explain the limit parameter or result ordering.

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 states a specific verb and resource: searching the voices available to this API key. It precisely scopes what is searchable (stock voices, owned/bought voices, catalog voices), which lets an agent distinguish this lookup tool from the sibling speak tool without opening the schema.

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 usage by explaining that the tool searches available voices and that omitting the query lists stock and most-liked voices. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus speak or get_usage, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites for searching.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the 1-hour link retention, that audio length is billed against the key's plan, and that longer texts take longer to process. It doesn't cover failure behavior or rate limits, but the added quota and expiry context is substantive.

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler; the core action and return value come first, followed by billing and size constraints. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by explaining the return (a link kept 1 hour) and the include_audio option. It is nearly complete for a synthesis tool, missing only error/auth expectations.

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 80%, so parameters are largely documented already. The description reiterates the 20000-character cap (also in maxLength) but adds no meaning about 'voice' resolution, 'format', or 'include_audio' beyond what the schema says, so it sits at the baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Turn a text into speech') and states the concrete return ('a link to the audio file'), so the agent knows exactly what the call produces. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_voices or get_usage, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 offers one practical guideline ('voice long texts in parts') tied to a stated constraint, which is useful. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over list_voices or get_usage, and gives no guidance on prerequisites such as needing a valid voice id first.

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