get_speaker_audio

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about the retrieval workflow, what the returned audio represents, or how it relates to start_speaker_separation, so it contributes no behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

It is a single short phrase with no wasted words, which is structurally clean, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than intentional economy.

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 3-required-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum explain that it fetches the output of speaker separation and name any prerequisite call. Instead it provides only a title-like phrase, leaving a meaningful gap for the agent.

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 100% and each parameter (voice_id, sample_id, speaker_id) is documented, including URLs for listing valid values. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 phrase 'Retrieve Separated Speaker Audio' gives a verb and a resource, but it is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as get_audio_from_sample, get_pvc_sample_audio, or start_speaker_separation, leaving the agent to infer which one actually returns speaker-separated audio.

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 tool versus alternatives, and no mention of a prerequisite workflow (e.g., start_speaker_separation must run first) even though such a sibling exists. The agent gets no context or exclusions.

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