speech_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys meaningful behavioral content (this returns the actual read-aloud text per scene plus flagged fragments, i.e. a read/preview operation), but it never explicitly states that it is side-effect-free or describes formatting of the returned text. Reasonable but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

A single focused sentence with no filler, and the core purpose (showing read-aloud text) is front-loaded. Efficient, though slightly short given what it must convey.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and two completely undocumented required parameters. The description explains the output concept but leaves the agent without the information needed to supply course_dir and lesson_id correctly or to know the operation's safety profile.

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% and neither course_dir nor lesson_id is mentioned in the description. The scene-level framing gives faint context that a lesson is being inspected, but no parameter's meaning, format, or role is clarified.

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 and resource: it shows, scene by scene, the sentences TTS will actually read and flags hard-to-read fragments like English words. This is clearly distinct from action-oriented siblings such as audio_synthesize or pronunciation_add, though it never names or contrasts those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use context is given, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when to prefer this over audio_synthesize or pronunciation_add. The agent must infer the preview-vs-synthesize distinction entirely on its own.

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