voicebox_speak

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it's non-blocking (queues tasks), returns immediately with a task_id, and uses VOICEVOX. It doesn't cover aspects like error handling or rate limits, but provides essential operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key behavioral detail in two concise sentences. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains the non-blocking behavior and return value, but lacks details on error cases, task management, or integration with sibling tools, leaving gaps for an agent.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage without extra value.

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 specific action ('Convert text to speech') using the specific resource ('VOICEVOX'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like health checks or speaker lists. It includes the non-blocking behavior which further clarifies the operational nature.

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 context by mentioning 'Non-blocking - queues task and returns immediately with task_id,' suggesting it's for asynchronous speech synthesis. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.

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