get_voices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that strip: no mention of pagination, result ordering, scope of the listing, or the legacy-voice behavior controlled by show_legacy.

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?

'List Voices' is two words with no structural waste, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. There is no front-loaded scope or qualifying information, so the brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 read-only listing tool whose annotations cover safety and whose single parameter is fully documented, the description is still too thin: it does not say what set of voices is returned, which matters given sibling tools like get_library_voices and get_user_voices_v2. No output schema exists, but the listing behavior itself is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter, show_legacy, which the schema documents explicitly. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline 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?

States a clear verb ('List') and resource ('Voices'), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling voice tools (get_voice_by_id, get_library_voices, get_user_voices_v2, get_similar_library_voices, get_voice_accents), leaving scope unclear. It is essentially a restatement of the title 'Get Voices'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the numerous alternative voice-listing tools. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this returns workspace voices, library voices, or something else. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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