tool_generate_speech

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the output artifact ('Returns a WAV file path in outputs/'), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about text length limits, latency, cost, model-tier behavioral differences, or overwrite behavior when the target path already exists.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the return value; no filler or restatement of the tool name. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 single-parameter wrapper it covers the core action and return type, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves the agent without guidance on voice/tier selection, text-size constraints, or how output_path and output_filename interact. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, so the description is expected to compensate for parameter meaning, and it does not: voice, model, model_tier, output_path, and output_filename are never referenced. The only weak tie-in is 'outputs/', which vaguely gestures at the output path parameters without explaining precedence or format.

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 and resource ('Convert text to speech') plus the engine ('Gemini TTS'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like tool_generate_music, tool_generate_video, and tool_analyze_video. It does not explicitly name or contrast an alternative, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. generate_music for audio vs. speech), and no note about when to pick model_tier 'fast' vs 'quality' or which voice to choose. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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