text_to_speech

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic conversion without disclosing any behavioral traits such as supported languages, voice options, or limitations. The behavior is minimally disclosed.

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 very concise with one sentence, which is efficient but lacks necessary detail for usage and behavior. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool but could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 empty schema, missing annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It provides no context about output format, language support, or when to use this tool over siblings.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter details (none exist) but adequately states the tool's purpose.

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 'Convert text into speech' clearly states the verb (convert) and the resource (text to speech), making the core function obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like text_to_image or various chat tools, though the context implies a unique domain.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, when not to, or any alternatives. The description only states the function without offering context for selection among siblings.

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