text_to_dialogue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool generates and saves an audio file and returns its path, but omits details like file persistence, cost, or required permissions.

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?

Description is concise (8 lines) with a front-loaded purpose and structured bullet-like parameter explanations, containing no extraneous content.

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 and absence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality, parameters, and return value adequately. It could additionally mention prerequisites like voice existence.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining the structure of dialogue items, model_id defaults, and the purpose of each parameter. However, output_format lacks detail on acceptable values.

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?

Description clearly states 'Generate multi-speaker dialogue audio from a list of turns,' specifying a distinct verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like text_to_speech, which handles single-speaker 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 description implies usage for multi-speaker dialogue but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it reference alternatives among sibling tools.

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