text_to_sound_effects

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Returns: audio file path,' which is useful context about the output. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the 'Returns: audio file path' could be integrated more smoothly rather than as a fragment.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It explains the basic purpose and provides minimal usage guidance but fails to document parameters, behavioral details, or output format. For a tool that generates audio files with multiple configuration options, this leaves too much unspecified.

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%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. Parameters like 'text,' 'duration_seconds,' 'output_directory,' and 'output_format' remain completely unexplained in both the schema and description.

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: 'Generates sound effects from text' specifies both the verb (generates) and resource (sound effects). It distinguishes from siblings like text_to_speech or text_to_dialogue by focusing specifically on sound effects rather than speech or dialogue. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives.

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 includes a 'Use when:' clause: 'creating custom sound effects from descriptions,' which provides some context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like text_to_speech for voice generation or other audio tools. The guidance is helpful but incomplete.

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