text_to_speech

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the basic function. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions might be required, rate limits, what format the output takes (audio file, stream, etc.), or any error conditions. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core function and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, the structure itself is optimal for its length.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (audio format, file location, success indicators), doesn't provide behavioral context, and offers no usage guidance. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for proper tool invocation is missing.

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 no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). All 7 parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions, defaults, and types. The description doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions, validation rules, or examples of usage patterns.

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 'Convert text to speech' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('convert') and resource ('text to speech'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_voices' or explain how they differ in functionality.

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. There's no mention of the sibling tool 'list_voices' or any context about when text-to-speech conversion is appropriate versus listing available voices. The description lacks any usage context or prerequisites.

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