voicebox_stream_generation

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It discloses that it streams and saves a file, but omits details like file overwrite behavior, permission requirements, or potential side effects. Adequate but could be more thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences with key information front-loaded. Every sentence adds value; no 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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Description covers core functionality, but could mention potential limitations like maximum text length or timeout behavior. Still fairly complete for a streaming tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond parameter names and defaults; it does not explain profile_id or output_path beyond what schema provides.

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?

Description clearly states it streams speech audio directly and saves to file, distinguishing from async generation. The verb 'stream' and resource 'speech audio' are specific, and the contrast with 'async generation queue' differentiates from siblings like voicebox_generate.

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?

Explicitly notes it bypasses async queue and is good for short texts, implying use case. However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use or mention of alternative for longer texts, but the hint is sufficient.

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