sym_voices

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. It adds some useful info (tags and preview audio, language/gender values) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response structure includes beyond preview audio, or any side effects. It does not mention authorization or rate limits. The transparency is minimal and insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 concise, using a single sentence with a colon to introduce parameter hints. It is not overly verbose and gets to the point. However, the structure mixes the main purpose with parameter examples in a way that could be more clearly separated, but it is still efficient and on-topic.

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 5 parameters (all optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention how filtering works (e.g., 'query' semantics), whether results are paginated via 'limit', or what 'recommendOnly' controls. It also does not clarify the return format beyond mentioning preview audio. An agent would be under-informed to call this tool correctly, lacking important operational details.

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 0%, so the description should explain each parameter. It explicitly explains 'language' and 'gender' with example values (english/spanish, male/female), which is helpful, but it does not clarify 'limit', 'query', or 'recommendOnly'. Without these, the agent cannot correctly construct a call or understand filtering behavior. The partial coverage does not adequately compensate the missing schema 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 identifies the resource: voices for talking avatars, and mentions tags (language, gender, age, style) and preview audio. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sym_avatars (avatars) and sym_templates (templates) by focusing on voices. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Search', relying on the noun phrase to imply retrieval, so it's a point below perfect.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It fails to mention that this tool is for searching/listing voices or when to prefer it over other category-specific tools. No usage context or exclusions are given, leaving the agent to infer from the resource name.

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