gemini_dialogue_toolGenerate multi-voice dialogue audio from speaker-labeled text by assigning two selected voices.
Generate multi-voice dialogue audio.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Dialogue text with speaker labels. | |
| voice1 | No | First voice name. | Kore |
| voice2 | No | Second voice name. | Puck |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the capability. It omits that exactly two voices are involved, that the text requires speaker-label formatting, whether valid voice names are constrained, and what audio format is returned. Only slightly more than a bare restatement.
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 with zero filler. It is arguably undersized for a tool whose core input constraint (speaker-labeled dialogue text) matters, but there is no wasted language.
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 output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the parameters are fully documented in the schema. Still missing are the operational essentials an agent would need: valid voice names/values, confirmation that only two voices are supported, and routing guidance against the sibling speak/list-voices tools.
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%, so the schema already documents text, voice1, and voice2 with their defaults. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 verb (Generate) and resource (multi-voice dialogue audio), and the word 'multi-voice' implicitly separates it from the single-voice gemini_speak_tool and gemini_list_voices_tool. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 says nothing about when to choose this over gemini_speak_tool (single-voice TTS) or how to discover valid voice names via gemini_list_voices_tool. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.