synthesize_speech

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It proactively discloses the unauthenticated CPU fallback, latency expectations, and output format. It does not mention rate limits or text-length constraints, but the core runtime behavior and authentication requirements are transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the latency/auth caveat is delivered concisely. Every sentence adds either functional or operational value.

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 three-parameter TTS tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what it returns, and current performance constraints. It could mention voice-id availability or input size limits, but the schema provides the parameter structure and the description provides sufficient operational context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on overall tool behavior. Since the schema already documents text, speed, and voice, the lack of additional detail is acceptable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Convert text to spoken audio using a real-time, streaming Kokoro-82M TTS gateway.' It also states the concrete output ('Returns a playable WAV file'), making the tool's function unmistakable even without sibling tools.

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 clear operational context: it is unauthenticated, requires no API key, and has multi-second latency. This implicitly tells an agent when use is acceptable (when latency is tolerable and no auth is available), though it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions since no siblings exist.

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