analyze_tts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must shoulder the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns a comprehensive report and that mispronunciation detection is optional, but does not mention potential side effects, performance implications, or any constraints. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and no error/edge-case behavior is disclosed.

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 concise, front-loaded with the key phrase 'Full TTS audio analysis,' and efficiently enumerates capabilities without fluff. It is a single well-structured sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview of what the tool returns ('comprehensive report') and the optional input that triggers extra functionality. It lacks details on report structure, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., dependencies), but given the simple parameter set and the presence of sibling tools for narrow tasks, it is sufficiently complete for initial selection.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter (audio_path, language, expected_text). The description adds no extra parameter information beyond what the schema already offers, such as the relationship between expected_text and mispronunciation detection, which is already in the schema. Thus, the description does not add value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 function: 'Full TTS audio analysis — transcription, quality scores, pacing analysis, and optional mispronunciation detection.' It enumerates specific output components and a use case ('for debugging TTS issues'), distinguishing itself from sibling tools like transcribe and quality_score by combining multiple analyses into one.

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 a usage context ('for debugging TTS issues') but does not explicitly contrast this tool with its siblings. It provides clear context for when to choose this comprehensive analysis over individual tools, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative recommendations, preventing a 5.

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