projector_speak

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that audio is produced via TTS, which is implied by the name, and says nothing about blocking behavior, duration, or whether a projector/TTS dependency must be active.

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?

One efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is bordering on under-specified rather than verbose, but structurally it is clean.

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 one-parameter tool with annotations covering safety, the definition is minimally adequate. It omits whether the call is synchronous, what happens on failure if the projector is off, and any volume/length considerations, which a user of a physical-output tool would want.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Text to speak'), so the schema carries the full burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no formatting, length, or voice hints beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('make the projector speak text') plus the mechanism (text-to-speech), which distinguishes it from the other projector_* siblings like projector_show_dashboard or projector_screenshot. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., send_notification for text output, or other projector tools), and no preconditions such as needing the projector running or a TTS engine available.

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