text_to_speech

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the core action without detailing output format, side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or any constraints. The schema provides the `format` parameter, but the description does not explain what the tool returns or how it behaves.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and key inputs. No wasted words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and the well-documented schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not mention the return value (e.g., audio data) or any caveats, and the absence of an output schema means more responsibility falls on the description to explain behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond naming `text` and `description`; it does not clarify the `format` parameter or provide any additional meaning beyond the existing schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Synthesize') and resource ('Bambara speech'), and clarifies the two main inputs (`text` and `description`). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like `translate`, `transcribe`, and `list_supported_languages`.

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 the tool is for converting text to Bambara speech, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no guidance on when not to use it or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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