Text to Speech

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

Annotations only provide hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description adds meaningful context by stating the tool operates locally and returns after playback finishes. This discloses timing and execution location beyond what the structured fields convey, though it does not discuss potential failures or platform dependencies.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is both concise and information-dense. Every phrase adds value, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter), available annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: it reads text aloud, does so locally, and waits for playback to finish. No additional context is needed for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already covers the single parameter with a clear description ('Text to read aloud. Do not include secrets or hidden reasoning.'). The tool description adds no new semantics for the parameter, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Read text aloud') and names the resource ('text'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also adds a distinguishing behavioral detail ('locally', 'return after playback finishes') that fully disambiguates it from any hypothetical alternatives.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. There are no sibling tools, but the description does not explicitly state a canonical use case or context, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the purpose alone.

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