step_text_to_speech

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool synthesizes speech audio and warns the agent to pass exact text rather than a vague reference, which is useful. However, it does not mention any setup requirements, response format of the call result, or other side effects such as API key requirements or rate limits.

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 action. All three sentences earn their place: the first defines the tool, the second gives usage conditions, and the third gives an important pre-call instruction. There is no redundant filler.

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 moderately simple and the schema covers all parameters, but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not mention prerequisites such as configuring an API key or what the agent should expect after invocation, such as an audio file URL or inline audio. The exact-text instruction helps, but the missing setup and result guidance leaves a meaningful gap.

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 all parameters and defaults well. The description's only additional parameter guidance is to pass exact text, not a vague reference, which largely duplicates the schema text for the 'text' parameter. It adds no new semantic context for speed, voice, volume, instruction, or response_format.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Generate speech audio with Step Plan TTS.' It also names concrete inputs like text, scripts, narration, and dialogue, which makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from the sibling tools for setup, API configuration, and image generation.

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use this when the user asks to turn text, scripts, narration, ads, reports, or dialogue into an audio file.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling tool names make the distinction obvious, so the usage context is clear.

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