synthesize_speech

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two useful behavioral facts: output is a local file URI rather than streamed audio, and the audio is short. It omits file location/lifetime, overwrite behavior, voice availability, and whether the URI is fetchable by other tools.

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, zero filler, and the most important fact for an agent (a file URI comes back, not a stream) is front-loaded in the second sentence.

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-value details need not be repeated, and the description does note the URI form. However, for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition is thin on parameter meaning and operational constraints.

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 (text, rate, voice), so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only the implicit 'short' qualifier hints at the text parameter; rate and voice are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 (synthesize) and resource (speech, as a short local WAV via espeak-ng). No sibling tool does TTS, so differentiation is less critical, but the description usefully distinguishes itself from a streaming-audio tool.

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 phrase 'short local WAV' implies a use case and a size constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings like get_speech_plan or create_tutor_turn that might precede or consume this output.

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