MiniMax MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists voices and describes the return format ('Text content with the list of voices'), but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, or error conditions. For a tool with zero 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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections for Args and Returns. The opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by organized parameter documentation. While efficient, the 'Returns' section could be slightly more specific about the format of the voice list.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics well, but lacks behavioral context that would be important for reliable tool invocation. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more detail about return values.

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 significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It fully documents the single parameter 'voice_type', including its optional nature, valid values (['all', 'system', 'voice_cloning']), and default value ('all'). This completely compensates for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with 'List all voices available' - a specific verb ('List') and resource ('voices'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'voice_clone' or 'voice_design' by focusing on listing rather than creating or modifying voices. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other listing tools since none exist among siblings.

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. While the purpose is clear, there's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other voice-related tools like 'voice_clone' or 'voice_design', or any context about typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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