sapiens_helen

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does this richly: it mentions charging, external providers, BYOK vs env keys, chunking before 5000 chars, and required caller-side preprocessing. This is substantial behavioral disclosure beyond the structured metadata.

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 dense but efficient, covering purpose, sub-actions, output, cost, BYOK, limits, and preprocessing in a compact paragraph. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids redundant restatements, though the density makes it slightly harder to scan than a bulleted structure would be.

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 11 parameters, a nested voiceSettings object, and no output schema, the description covers the essential missing pieces: return shape, sub-action behavior, provider cost, and text constraints. It lacks details on error handling or provider-specific edge cases, but those are not necessary for basic correct invocation.

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 coverage is high (91%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the meaning of 'action' sub-actions, the output fields for 'speak', the chunking constraint tied to 'text', and the cost model tied to 'provider'. This is more than the schema provides alone.

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 is a TTS tool ('Helen Voice TTS') and spells out its two sub-actions ('list_presets' and 'speak'), along with the output form ('audioBase64+mimeType+sizeBytes'). It is specific about providers and scope, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives clear operational context: who can use it ('qualquer logado'), costing implications ('cobra Sinapses'), BYOK behavior, the 5000-character limit, and the required preprocessing of 'text'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the provider and sub-action guidance is clear enough for practical selection.

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