speech_t2a_http

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses synchronicity, char limit, output format option, and URL validity duration. However, it omits details on rate limits, cost implications, or behavior on exceeding limits, which would be useful for a TTS 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?

The description is extremely concise at two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and key constraint (char limit). No unnecessary words or filler.

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?

With 22 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It only addresses char limit and output_format, ignoring other crucial parameters like voice_id, model, format, and emotion. The agent lacks information to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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 low (23%). The description only adds meaning for the output_format parameter, mentioning the 24h URL. All other parameters (e.g., vol, pitch, emotion) remain unexplained, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set them.

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 the tool performs synchronous text-to-speech synthesis with a 10,000 character limit and returns an audio URL plus metadata. It distinguishes itself from async sibling tools by explicitly noting synchronicity.

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 use for immediate audio needs but does not explicitly provide guidance on when to use this tool versus the async alternatives. No exclusion criteria or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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