speak

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It lists parameters like 'stop' and 'service_level' but does not disclose side effects, whether TTS is synchronous, if it interrupts ongoing audio, or what happens on failures. The return value is vaguely described as 'Response data.'

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 uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Each parameter entry is informative and scannable, though it is somewhat lengthy due to the number of parameters. No unnecessary fluff is present.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, plus the generic request schema, the description should provide more context. It lists parameters but fails to explain how the 'request' object relates to the listed arguments, the response structure, or the behavioral semantics of the TTS action. For an agent to correctly invoke and interpret the result, more detail is needed.

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 schema only defines a generic 'request' object with additionalProperties true, providing 0% coverage of the actual parameters. The description compensates by listing each parameter with defaults and valid values (voice, payload_type, service_level, stop, language), which is essential for constructing the request. The mismatch between the schema wrapper and the listed arguments is not explicitly explained, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Speak text on a call using text-to-speech,' identifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like playback_start by explicitly mentioning text-to-speech, which is unique among the listed tools.

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 use case: speaking text on a call via TTS. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as playback_start or send_dtmf, nor does it state any exclusions.

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