gemini-media-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'voice selection and language configuration' as features, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, output format (though output schema exists), latency, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: a single sentence states the core purpose, followed by a brief feature list. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and features, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., costs, limitations). The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall, it's adequate with clear gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (prompt, voiceName, languageCode) with descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by hinting at voice examples ('e.g. Aoede, Kore, Puck') and language codes, but doesn't provide new syntax or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Generate speech audio from a text prompt using Google's Gemini TTS.' It specifies the verb ('Generate'), resource ('speech audio'), and technology ('Google's Gemini TTS'), distinguishing it from siblings like generate_image or generate_music. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all audio-related siblings (none exist in the list), so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions voice selection and language configuration as features, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. For example, it doesn't compare to generate_music or other media tools, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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