start_voice_audio

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing that the result merely confirms configuration rather than verifying audible playback, and that CABLE Output must be pre-configured.

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?

Two short sentences with the action stated first and the prerequisite/caveat second; no filler. Slight redundancy in repeating '已配置' for both input and output, but otherwise tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description's note that the result only confirms configuration is a helpful complement. What remains missing is the sequencing relative to sibling tools (model selection, routing setup), but for a zero-parameter start call the coverage is largely sufficient.

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?

With zero parameters the baseline is 4; the schema has nothing to document. The description usefully notes that the required inputs (model and routing) are not passed here but must already be configured elsewhere, which is meaningful context given the empty schema.

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 (start/play) plus the resource (the voice audio engine reading CABLE Output and playing to the configured output), which is clear enough to distinguish from the inverse sibling pause_voice_audio. It stops short of naming siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('needs a model and full routing configuration'), which is useful context for when the call will succeed, but it never states when to prefer this over pause_voice_audio or what to do first (e.g., select_voice_model). Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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