audio_de

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action and the corpus limitation, but does not mention output format, latency, side effects, permissions, or whether the tool modifies any state. It does not contradict any annotations because none exist.

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 two short sentences: the first front-loads the primary action, and the second adds useful context about why the tool exists. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate: it explains what the tool does and why it is needed. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it relative to sibling tools and does not describe the expected output, which is a gap given there is no output schema.

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 has a single 'texto' string parameter with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description compensates partly by explaining that the text is the source for synthesis ('a partir de un texto') and gives examples, but it does not specify language constraints, length limits, or text formatting requirements.

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 states the tool's function: 'Sintetiza polaco hablado a partir de un texto' (synthesizes spoken Polish from text). It also provides concrete use cases (dictados, diálogos, shadowing), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like escuchar or comprobar_pronunciacion that deal with listening/pronunciation rather than generating audio.

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 context is implied: since the corpus has transcriptions but no audio files, this tool is used to generate the missing audio. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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