text_to_speech

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It does mention that the tool returns a local WAV file path and provides speed range (0.25..4.0) and default values, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (e.g., file cleanup, async behavior) or whether a model must be pre-loaded. It adds some context beyond the schema but not comprehensive detail.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, then a compact list of parameters with explanatory details. Each sentence earns its place, and the output format is front-loaded. No unnecessary repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers all parameters and the return value (WAV file path). It might benefit from noting whether the operation is synchronous or if any model loading is required, but these are minor gaps for a text-to-speech tool. Overall, it provides sufficient information for an agent to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by describing each parameter: text (what to speak), model (ID with default), voice (backend-specific), and speed (range and default). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and is essential for correct invocation.

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 'Synthesize speech from text; returns a local WAV file path,' which specifies a precise verb, resource, and output. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools (generate_music, generate_image, etc.) by the explicit text-to-speech purpose.

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 does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The distinct purpose (speech synthesis) implies usage, but there is no direct guidance such as 'Use this when you need spoken audio' or comparisons to other generation tools. The parameter defaults give some context but not usage conditions.

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