create_speech

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the core function and endpoint but does not disclose output format, potential errors, rate limits, or any safety-relevant behavior. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource. It includes the endpoint reference without unnecessary fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple TTS tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the basic purpose and endpoint. However, without an output schema, it lacks information about return values (e.g., audio format, download vs. base64), which is a notable gap.

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%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but it does align with the 'input' parameter by mentioning text. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 generates speech audio from text, using a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('speech audio from text'). It also mentions the LiteLLM endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like chat_completion or create_image.

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 implies its use case (text-to-speech) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. No sibling tool overlaps, so the purpose is clear, but no direct guidance is provided.

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