tts_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the output artifact (WAV), the side effect of writing to disk, the default fallback location ./audio-story-runs/_preview/, and that pronunciation.json from a run is applied when available. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether an existing preview file is overwritten, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output format, followed by purpose and the no-run fallback. No filler; it would earn a 5 only if it covered the undocumented parameters instead of stopping short.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the file-write behavior is disclosed. However, for a 4-parameter tool with zero schema description coverage, leaving 'name' and the required 'text'/'voice' semantics unexplained is a real gap for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must explain all four parameters, but it only covers 'run' (used to pick up pronunciation.json, and its absence redirects output to _preview/). 'text', 'voice' and especially 'name' (default 'preview') are left undocumented, and an agent cannot infer what 'name' controls — presumably a filename or label.

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 states a specific verb (đọc thử / preview-read), resource (one sentence with one voice) and concrete artifact (WAV file), which clearly separates it from the full-render sibling tts_render. It does not name tts_render or list_voices directly, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Dùng để chọn giọng / thử cách đọc tên trước khi đọc cả truyện' gives a clear selection context (choosing a voice / testing name pronunciation before rendering the whole story). It does not explicitly exclude anything or name the alternative tool, but the intended workflow position is clear.

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