tts_render

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 path pattern, idempotent skip behavior, the mandatory check_script gate, and GPU-dependent concurrency. It omits what force does and any permission/rate considerations, so not a 5.

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?

Tight, front-loaded, and every clause carries operational meaning (output location, prerequisite, resume semantics, param hints). The telegraphic style borders on terse but wastes nothing.

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 not be explained, and the description covers prerequisites, idempotency, and output paths. The main gap is the undefined 'force' flag and the required 'run' parameter for a 5-param tool with zero schema descriptions.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains limit, segment_ids, and workers well. But it says nothing about 'run' (the required parameter) or 'force', leaving two of five parameters, including the only required one and a mutation-style flag, entirely undocumented.

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 (đọc kịch bản / render TTS) and concrete resource (script → audio/seg_XXXXX.wav), plus the voice model (cast.narrator.voice). This clearly separates it from siblings like tts_preview, assemble_audio, and check_script.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions ('Chỉ chạy khi check_script mới nhất không còn lỗi') and the resume pattern (already-rendered segments are skipped, call again to continue). It also routes parameter choice (limit for trial runs, segment_ids to re-read specific segments, workers>1 only with GPU) but never explicitly contrasts with tts_preview.

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