speak_on_echo

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: 'Accepted means submitted to HA, not confirmed playback' discloses asynchronous acceptance semantics, which no annotation conveys, and 'Never retry automatically' encodes a retry policy consistent with idempotentHint=false. It also adds 'Soft-volume delivery' and dry_run validation behavior. It stops short of permissions, failure modes, or timing, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Six short front-loaded clauses, each carrying distinct information, with the primary targeting constraint first and caveats after. 'Soft-volume delivery' is the only clause whose meaning stays ambiguous, slightly softening an otherwise tight structure.

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 3-param, no-output-schema tool, it covers the essentials an agent needs: targeting semantics, async acceptance instead of playback confirmation, retry policy, and dry-run behavior. The remaining gap is speaker-name validity and error behavior, which matters given sibling `list_echo_speakers` exists but is never referenced.

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%, so the description carries full burden: it explains `dry_run` ('validates configuration without sound') and implies `speaker` via 'the explicitly requested named Echo', but says nothing about `text` and gives no guidance on valid speaker names or whether an unknown speaker errors. Partial compensation only.

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 (speak on a named Echo) plus a distinguishing scope constraint ('no presence routing'), which separates it from the generic `speak` sibling without naming it outright. The purpose is clear, but the routing contrast to `speak`/`character_speak` is left implicit rather than explicit.

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?

'Speak only on the explicitly requested named Echo. ... no presence routing' implies the use case (targeted playback) versus ambient routing, and 'dry_run validates configuration without sound' implies a pre-flight use. However, no sibling tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given, so the agent must infer the alternative.

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