generate_audio

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral details. It lists supported voices, formats, and speed range, which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not mention cost, latency, or whether the output is a downloadable file or URL, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two sentences: first states the core purpose, second lists supported options and provides a usage alternative. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential 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?

While the description covers input parameters well, it does not describe the output format (e.g., returns an audio file, URL, or ID) despite no output schema existing. This omission reduces completeness for an AI agent needing to handle the result. Additionally, the character limit is in the schema but not reinforced in the description.

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 100% and each parameter already has a description. The description merely enumerates the voices and formats already in the schema, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate audio from text using text-to-speech (TTS) synthesis.' It specifies the action (generate), resource (audio), and method (TTS), making it distinct from sibling tools, especially by explicitly naming generate_article_narration as an alternative.

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?

Description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use the intent-specific generate_article_narration tool for article content.' This helps the agent decide which tool to invoke based on the type of content.

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