speak_segments

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. It does disclose the two-stage behavior (per-segment synthesis, then pause-based concatenation into one track), but says nothing about the return artifact (file path vs. audio payload), latency/model cost, or side effects of a 7-parameter generation call.

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 compact sentence with the action and composition behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing information noted elsewhere.

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 7-parameter generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin: nothing about what is returned, whether a reference voice is required, or what the numeric knobs change. An agent could call it, but not confidently or optimally.

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 reported at 0% for the top-level parameters: seed, cfg_value, output_format, normalize_loudness, inference_timesteps, and reference_audio_path are undocumented in both schema and description. The phrase '按停顿拼接' hints at the per-segment pause_ms, but the description explains none of the remaining six parameters or how reference audio affects the output.

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 verb+resource: synthesize each of several text segments with VoxCPM2 and concatenate them by pause into one emotional narration. This clearly separates it in spirit from the single-utterance sibling 'speak', but it never names that sibling or explicitly states the boundary.

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?

'多段文字' implies the tool is for multi-segment narration, so the when-to-use is inferable, but there is no explicit guidance to prefer 'speak' for a single utterance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the conditions under which segmentation is warranted.

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