previewEdgeVoice

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the return format and that an Edge TTS synthesis occurs, but it does not mention side effects, network/API dependencies, auth requirements, output length limits, or failure behavior.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action, the tool's scope, and the return format without wasted words. Every phrase contributes useful 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?

For a low-complexity synthesis tool, the description covers the key details: what it does, which voice family it uses, and the output encoding. Minor gaps remain, such as no explicit limits on preview length and no guidance versus sibling TTS tools, but it is mostly complete.

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%, with each parameter (text, voice, rate, pitch, volume) already described and given examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific action ('Synthesize a short preview clip') and resource ('Edge TTS voice'), and adds the output format ('MP3 bytes, base64 in the response'). This makes the tool's role clear and distinguishable from sibling call/voice-list tools.

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 use for previewing Edge TTS voices, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like generateTts, quickCallWithEdge, or kokoroPreview. No alternatives, conditions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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