tts_voice_demo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. 'Play' makes it clear this is an audio output action, and 'demo phrase' suggests a fixed default. It does not mention optional text behavior, side effects, or return values, but for a simple playback tool this is minimally sufficient.

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 a single, self-contained sentence that immediately conveys the core action. No wasted words and the most important qualifier ('demo phrase') is front-loaded.

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 simple playback tool with a straightforward schema, the description is almost complete. It omits an explanation of default text behavior and whether any audio output is asynchronous, but given the tool's simplicity and sibling context, these gaps are minor.

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 fully covers both parameters with clear descriptions (text defaulting to a demo phrase, voice being the voice name). The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already provides 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Play') and resource ('demo phrase') with a qualifier ('with a specific voice'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like tts_speak (general text) and tts_save_audio (saving), though not explicitly naming alternatives.

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 this tool is for demos or quick testing of a particular voice, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over tts_speak or provide exclusion criteria, so its usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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