speak_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden; it discloses the platform (macOS), that output is audible speech, and that it targets the current output device. It does not say whether the call blocks until speech finishes, what happens if no device is set, or what is returned, leaving real gaps for a side-effecting tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action and mechanism stated immediately and no filler. Nothing could be trimmed 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 simple three-parameter, single-required-field tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what gets performed and where. The only remaining gap is blocking/return behavior, which is minor at this complexity level.

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 rate, text, and voice (including the Daniel default and the 'say -v ?' hint) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (speak) and resource (text) plus the mechanism (macOS text-to-speech) and target (current output device). It is distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with audio-playing siblings like play_audio or route_and_play.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as play_audio or route_and_play, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the purpose sentence itself.

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