speak

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 mentions 'speak text on a call' but does not disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, whether it interrupts existing audio, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by clear parameter and return sections. Each sentence adds value, though it could be more concise by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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 complexity of a TTS tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., how it interacts with call state), error handling, and output format, despite providing parameter info that contradicts the schema.

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 has 0% description coverage with only one parameter ('request'), but the description lists 7 detailed parameters (e.g., 'call_control_id', 'payload', 'voice'). This is a severe contradiction—the description provides rich parameter semantics that do not align with the schema, making it misleading rather than helpful.

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: 'Speak text on a call using text-to-speech.' It specifies the verb ('speak'), resource ('text'), and context ('on a call'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'playback_start' or 'send_dtmf', which are also call-related actions.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an active call), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as 'playback_start' for audio playback or 'send_dtmf' for tones, leaving usage unclear.

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