voice_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get the current status' clearly implies a read-only operation, and the listing of return fields provides transparency about what data the tool exposes. For a status tool, no side effects are expected, and the description does not obscure any behavior.

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 two sentences: the first states the action, the second lists outputs. It is front-loaded and every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 that the tool has no parameters and an output schema is present, the description fully covers the operational scope. It enumerates all return fields, making it complete for a simple, read-only status tool. There are no obvious gaps in context.

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 tool has zero parameters, which earns a baseline 4. The description appropriately focuses on return values instead of attempting to explain inexistent parameters.

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 ('Get') and resource ('EarSay server status'), and enumerates the exact output fields (status, uptime, character count, checkpoint count, subscription count). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform actions like start/stop/pause/resume.

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 clearly states this is for retrieving current server status, which gives an unambiguous usage context. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tool set shows voice_status is the only status-query tool among action-oriented commands, so exclusion is implicit.

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