text_to_speech

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions saving as MP3 and optional playback, but fails to disclose network dependency, API key requirements, or side effects like file creation location. This is insufficient for a tool interacting with an external service.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and includes only necessary information. It is efficient and free of 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?

The tool is relatively simple, but the absence of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context. It covers the core function well but omits prerequisites like API key setup and potential side effects, leaving gaps for an agent evaluating whether this tool fits the situation.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for all five parameters, so the description adds little beyond the schema. It mentions 'save it as an MP3' and 'optionally play' which are already represented in the schema descriptions for output_path and play. Baseline 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 verb 'Convert' with resource 'text to speech', and specifies the output as MP3 with optional playback. This strongly distinguishes it from sibling list_voices, which is about listing voices, not generating speech.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_voices or any alternatives. The description implies usage for converting text to speech, but does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when it might be inappropriate to use.

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