text_to_speech_v3

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the return value ('Returns: audio file path') which is helpful, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the output directory doesn't exist. The description adds some value but 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 extremely concise and well-structured: purpose statement, return value, and usage guidance all in three clear, front-loaded sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and when to use it, but doesn't explain parameter meanings, error conditions, or detailed behavioral characteristics. The return value is mentioned, but without an output schema, more detail about the audio file format or potential errors would be helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description mentions 'v3 model and tags' which hints at some parameters, but doesn't explain what any of the specific parameters (text, voice_name, output_directory, voice_id, stability, similarity_boost) actually mean or how they affect the output. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 text to speech with v3 model and tags.' It specifies the action (converts), resource (text to speech), and model version (v3). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'text_to_speech' or 'text_to_dialogue' that might offer different 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: single speaker needs emotions, pauses, or sound effects.' This gives clear context about when this tool is appropriate. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools.

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