text_to_dialogue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns 'dialogue audio file paths' (output format) but lacks critical behavioral details: whether it's a read-only or mutating operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, file format specifics, or error handling. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose first, followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and usage but lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context (e.g., whether it's a heavy computation), and detailed output information. For a complex audio generation tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'multi-speaker text' (hinting at 'inputs' parameter) and 'audio file paths' (related to output), but provides no details about 'output_directory', 'stability', or 'similarity_boost' parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Converts multi-speaker text to audio' (specific verb+resource). It distinguishes from siblings like text_to_speech (single voice) and text_to_sound_effects (non-dialogue audio). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with text_to_voice or text_to_speech_v3, which might have overlapping functionality.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use when: creating conversations with multiple voices.' This clearly indicates the intended context (multi-speaker scenarios). However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. text_to_speech for single voice) or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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