sing_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing beyond 'this produces singing'. It says nothing about what audio is returned, how the device/prompt WAV affect execution, whether generation is expensive or requires a model download, or what happens when the three arrays have mismatched lengths.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key inputs are stated before the 'no metadata needed' benefit. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a 12-parameter tool.

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?

With 12 parameters, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition leaves an agent unable to determine array alignment rules, default behavior of auto_shift/pitch_shift, or what the tool returns. The one-sentence description is far too thin for this complexity.

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% across 12 parameters. The description only names the three required ones (phonemes, note_pitches, durations_ms) without explaining units, alignment, or length constraints, and the nine optional parameters — text, device, language, auto_shift, pitch_shift, output_format, prompt_wav_path, prompt_metadata_path, normalize_loudness — are entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific action (generate singing) and the three inputs that drive it (phonemes, MIDI pitches, per-character durations), so the purpose is unmistakable. The clause '不需要手写完整元数据' implicitly distinguishes it from the sing_metadata sibling, though it never names that sibling outright.

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?

Usage is implied: use this when you already have phonemes/pitches/durations and want to skip writing full metadata. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer sing_metadata or speak/speak_segments instead, nor does it state prerequisites for the prompt_wav_path and prompt_metadata_path options.

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