Vozes do Flow

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the description's added value is 'Não gasta nada' — a concrete cost guarantee that the annotations do not express. It also previews the returned fields, which matters since no output schema exists; volume or ordering of results is still undisclosed.

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?

Two compact sentences: purpose and payload first, cost reassurance second. Nothing is repeated and nothing is padded.

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 zero-required-param read tool this covers the essentials: what it returns, what it costs, and where the output is consumed. Only minor gaps remain, such as how many voices come back and whether results are pre-filtered.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional 'busca' parameter is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description says nothing about filtering, so it adds no meaning beyond structured data — the expected baseline of 3.

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 specific verb and resource ('Lista as vozes do Flow') and enumerates what each entry contains (nome, gênero, timbre). It also names the consumer tool flow_gerar_video, which anchors it against siblings, though it does not explicitly exclude any alternative.

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 phrase 'para usar em voz de flow_gerar_video e na voz dos personagens' tells the agent exactly the situation that calls for this tool: choosing a voice before generation or character creation. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, keeping it below a 5.

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