preview_voice

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, and 'Create a ... WAV' is consistent with a write. The 'No text leaves the computer' line usefully reinforces the closed-world/privacy profile, but nothing is said about where the file is written, whether it is overwritten or cleaned up, or cost/latency of synthesis.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the action plus its privacy guarantee are front-loaded. Nothing needs to be trimmed.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and defaults make the tool callable with no arguments. However, with 0% parameter coverage the agent gets no help on the text/speed/voice inputs or on what to do with the resulting WAV file, leaving a real gap for a synthesis tool.

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% for three parameters, and the description never mentions text, speed, or voice. Only the word 'narrator' loosely hints at the voice parameter, and the non-obvious default ('af_heart') and speed units are left entirely unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Create a short local WAV preview,' scoped to narrator selection. An agent can tell it produces an audio preview rather than a storyboard preview, but the description never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. preview_storyboard) explicitly.

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?

'before choosing a narrator' gives a timing cue for use, but there is no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or which tool actually performs the narrator selection. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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