Describe the engine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns the resolved algorithm and execution configuration, and frames it as a read-only diagnostic action ('Log this'). However, it doesn't describe what the output schema contains or any side effects, though the output schema exists and may cover return values.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the usage guidance is embedded efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter diagnostic tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns and when to use it. It could be slightly stronger by noting that it's read-only or non-mutating, but the absence of parameters and the diagnostic framing make that less critical.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description adds meaning by explaining what the tool reports (resolved algorithm and execution configuration), which is useful context beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 for 0 params 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 states a specific verb ('Log this') and resource ('resolved algorithm and execution configuration'), and distinguishes it from siblings by framing it as a diagnostic/observability tool rather than a synthesis or voice-listing tool. It's not a perfect 5 because it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not, but the intent is clear.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use it: 'Log this whenever a synthesis surprises you.' This is a clear context signal. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context (list_voices, synthesize) makes the usage boundary reasonably clear.

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