speak_file

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

The description discloses the return value structure (filePath, byteLength, durationMs, warnings) and mentions writing to disk. However, it does not cover potential side effects like overwriting existing files or permissions, which would be useful. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two sentences and a return list. Every sentence adds value, and the key differentiator is front-loaded.

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 three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, return structure, and contrasts with sibling. It could mention the sampleRate default/range, but that is already in the schema. Overall, it is nearly complete.

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 67%, and the description does not add significant new information beyond the schema for 'utterance' and 'filePath'. The 'sampleRate' parameter has constraints in schema but no description; the description does not elaborate on it. With moderate coverage, a score 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 that this tool writes a WAV file to disk and returns the path, contrasting it with the sibling 'speak' tool. The verb 'write' and resource 'WAV file' are specific, and the distinction from 'speak' is explicit.

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 explicitly advises 'Use this when you need to attach or share the audio file', which guides the agent on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'speak'.

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