speak

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'speak[s] text using text-to-speech' and 'mark[s] delivered utterances as responded,' but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's actions without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with no wasted information.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual aspects like the tool's behavioral impact (e.g., whether it's a read or write operation), error handling, or what 'mark delivered utterances as responded' entails. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'text' documented as 'The text to speak.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as text length limits, language support, or formatting requirements. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('speak') and resource ('text'), and mentions an additional action ('mark delivered utterances as responded'). However, with no sibling tools, there's no opportunity to distinguish from alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool, such as appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or limitations. It lacks any mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implicit.

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