speak_non_blocking

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the non-blocking nature, immediate return, queueing, and sequential playback guarantee. It also names the synthesis backends ('neural Voice Design or macOS say'). It stops short of covering failure modes or return-value details, but the key behavioral traits are transparent.

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 sentences, all relevant and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core action, the second explains the non-blocking semantics, and the third covers the queueing guarantee. No filler or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the operation, the key behavioral distinction, and the queueing guarantee. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over the sibling 'speak', but is otherwise complete for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, but the description references 'the provided message', making it clear that the 'message' parameter is the text to be spoken. There are no constraints, examples, or format details in either the schema or description, but with a single simple string parameter the description provides just enough meaning.

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 ('Speaks') and resource ('the provided message aloud'), and immediately distinguishes the tool through its name and 'Non-blocking' behavior. The sibling tool 'speak' is implicitly differentiated by the guarantee of queueing and immediate return.

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 clearly conveys that this tool is non-blocking and queues messages, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling 'speak' or state when to choose this tool over it, leaving the routing decision mostly to inference.

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