mimo.tts

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

With no annotations, the description covers embedded tags and director mode but omits details on error handling, authentication needs, or the exact response behavior beyond returning a local wav path.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, efficiently listing options in a single sentence without 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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description provides an overview but lacks detail on the style parameter and audio format flexibility, relying on the output schema for return value specifics.

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 description adds value for voice, instructions, and text embedding, but fails to explain the 'style' parameter and contradicts the 'audio_format' enum by only mentioning wav output, leaving 33% of parameters partially covered given 0% schema coverage.

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 explicitly states '文本合成语音' (text to speech), with specific details on voice selection, instructions, and embedded tags, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like speech recognition or voice cloning.

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 implies usage for generating speech from text and mentions voice options but does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives like voice design or cloning.

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