apple_tts

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose side effects, confirmation requirements, or the protected/destructive action behavior hinted at by the confirm parameter in the schema. It only enumerates actions without explaining their impact or return behavior.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Each sentence is useful and earns its place, though it omits contextual details that could contribute to a richer understanding. It is appropriately compact for a lightweight overview.

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 schema fully covers parameter semantics and the confirm workflow, so the description does not need to repeat those details. However, it lacks context on when to use the tool or how the actions interrelate, making it minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 already provides descriptions for all five parameters, including the action enum, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the action names. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline 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 identifies the tool's purpose as 'Text-to-speech on macOS' and lists the specific actions (say, list_voices, stop), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools that handle other Apple subsystems. While it uses a noun phrase rather than a verb, the intent is unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives, nor any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison to sibling tools. The action list implies basic usage but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over others.

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