gemini_speak_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the basic function. It does not mention any side effects, output formats, rate limits, or potential limitations, offering minimal insight into the tool's runtime behavior beyond the obvious.

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 a single declarative sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose. It is concise without unnecessary verbosity, though it could be seen as slightly under-specified rather than elegantly compact. Still, for the tool's simplicity, it works well.

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 simple TTS tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential action. However, it lacks useful context such as input length limits, supported audio formats, or typical use cases. It's adequate but leaves room for enhancement, matching the 'minimum viable' standard.

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?

The input schema already documents both 'text' and 'voice' parameters completely, including a default value and enumerated voice options. The description adds no additional semantic value, but since the schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 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?

The description 'Convert text to speech' uses a clear verb-resource pairing that unambiguously conveys the tool's core function. It effectively differentiates this tool from siblings like image generation or query tools, though it could add more contextual distinction. While not as descriptive as the top examples, it meets the criteria for a specific and understandable purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without any contextual advice, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage scenarios or alternatives.

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