tts_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does so: 'Loads no weights — safe as a preflight' discloses the non-mutating behavior, and it warns that a card with under ~4096 MB free will fail to load. It omits any mention of latency or whether the check itself touches the GPU.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and then the safety note and the failure heuristic. The opening enumeration is long but each item is genuinely informative, so it earns its length without much waste.

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 zero-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the remaining critical context: that the call is weight-free and what VRAM threshold causes downstream load failures. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description adds no misleading parameter-like details.

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?

States a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('Chatterbox TTS readiness'), then enumerates exactly what is reported: packages, device, VRAM, resident/available models, languages, and tags. It also positions itself against siblings by naming its role as a preflight before a speak call.

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?

Explicitly frames the tool as a preflight before a speak call and tells the agent to check free_mb here first when a GPU is occupied. It does not, however, state when not to use it or contrast it with list_voices or other siblings, so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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