text_to_speech

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions converting to MP3, using Edge's neural voices, and saving to disk, but omits behaviors like file overwriting, return values, error handling, or network dependencies. Some useful context is added, but the behavior is not fully disclosed.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes the key usage hint about list_voices. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant information.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, but with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers the main function and prerequisite, but does not address filename default behavior, return value, or format for rate/pitch/volume. These gaps are notable for a tool with this complexity.

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 must compensate. It explains 'text' and 'voice' implicitly ('transcript/text' and 'specific voice/language/accent'), but does not add meaning for rate, pitch, volume, or filename. The description only covers two of six parameters, leaving the others semantically vague.

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 the tool converts text to an MP3 file using Microsoft Edge's TTS voices and saves it to disk. It uses a specific verb ('Convert'), names the resource ('transcript/text'), and the output ('MP3 audio recording'), which distinguishes it from sibling list_voices.

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 instructs users to call list_voices first if they want a specific voice/language/accent, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling. This satisfies the 'alternatives' criterion.

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