text_to_speech

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It fails to disclose side effects (e.g., interrupting current audio), required permissions, blocking behavior, or what the output contains. The output schema exists but is not mentioned.

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 short and structured as a clear sentence followed by an enumerated parameter list. Every sentence is necessary, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter details. However, it omits details about the return value (despite output schema existing) and any operational nuances, making it minimally adequate.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter with examples (e.g., language codes 'en', 'zh', 'ja') and clarifying the rate parameter with 'Speech rate, 1.0 is normal'. Given 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well.

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 explicitly states the tool's action: 'Speak text aloud using text-to-speech.' This is a specific verb ('Speak') and resource ('text'), and the tool name and description align uniquely among siblings, as no other tool handles TTS.

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 (e.g., media_player or other audio tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, restrictions, or context for appropriate use.

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