speak

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It states that the tool 'Generates audio and plays it through speakers,' which is the core behavior. However, it does not mention side effects such as network requirements (edge-tts is an online service), whether it returns a value, or what happens if audio cannot be played. This is partial transparency, but not comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and behavior, and the second gives usage timing. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple, with thorough parameter descriptions in the schema and a concise explanation of behavior and usage. There is no output schema, but the description makes clear the result is audio played aloud. It lacks deeper details like error handling or edge cases, but for this complexity it is sufficiently complete.

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 100%; each of the four parameters has a meaningful description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics—it only provides overall context. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Speak text aloud using text-to-speech.' It also provides context for when to use it ('Use after coach'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling 'replay', which could be an alternative for hearing audio, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear usage context by stating 'Use after coach to hear how a phrase sounds.' This implies the workflow and when to invoke this tool. It does not exclude other sibling tools like replay, but the context is sufficient for typical usage. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, so it is not a 5.

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