read_speech

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it pays off: it states counting is exact, never estimate, explains that a card counts tag/short cite/highlighted words only, and notes highlighting cannot be seen in pasted text. It doesn't explicitly state side-effect behavior, but the read-and-return framing makes the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 opening sentence states purpose, then each parameter is explained in its own compact block with no filler. Despite covering detailed counting rules, it stays readable and every sentence contributes actionable 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?

An output schema exists, so return-format detail is not required. The description covers when to call it, how to shape inputs for both card-based and plain-text cases, the valid speech names and their timing, and the meaning of wpm. This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does fully: items is defined with the export_doc list format plus card-counting and plain-text rules; speech lists the four named speech types with durations; wpm gives pace guidance and defaults. Every parameter is given meaning beyond its title/schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Time a speech exactly and return its read-ready script', and immediately ties it to checking fit before export and deciding what to trim. This distinguishes it from export_doc and trimming tools without needing to open their schemas.

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?

'Use it to check a case fits before exporting, and to see what to trim' gives clear invocation context, and the plain-text note explains how to pass pasted cases. It doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or name an alternative tool, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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