speak_text

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

With no annotations, description must carry safety/behavior disclosure. It does disclose the TTS engine, routing through Ghost portal, and Android-only nature. However, it omits whether the call blocks until speech completes, whether audio is audible on phone vs PC, and what happens if TTS is unavailable.

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 short focused sections; every line earns its place—action, execution context, and parameter guide. No fluff and front-loaded purpose.

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 simple TTS tool, description covers purpose, platform, execution path, and all parameters. Output schema exists so return details aren't required, but it doesn't mention timing/asynchronous behavior or fallback if TTS is missing—minor completeness gap.

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 has 0% descriptions, but description covers all three params with meaningful semantics: device as ADB serial/Android-only, text as content, rate with concrete examples (0.5 slow, 1.0 normal, 1.5 fast). This exceeds schema's bare names/types/default.

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?

Description opens with a clear action: 'Make the phone speak text aloud using its built-in TTS engine.' The verb+resource ('speak text' / 'phone') is specific and distinguishes it from sibling text input tools like type_text and paste_text. It also adds platform scope (Android-only).

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 clear context: works from phone or PC and routes via Ghost portal, and states Android-only constraint. Doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but its use case is self-evident from the action.

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