list_learned_preferences

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read-only retrieval, and it usefully reveals that the response bundles two distinct things (learned preferences plus a voice guide), which is not obvious from the name. It says nothing about how preferences are ordered, pagination, or whether any of the content is mutable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the primary resource comes first and the secondary voice guide is appended with 'plus'. It could have separated the two return components more explicitly, but nothing is wasted.

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-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should describe the shape of what comes back, since the schema cannot. It names both components but not their structure or how many items to expect, leaving the agent to discover the return format on the first call.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds only that the call is unscoped and returns two content types.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and names two concrete resources: standing preferences learned from feedback and the current voice guide. That sets it apart from setup_voice and the other list_* siblings, though 'standing preferences' is a mildly abstract payload name.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though setup_voice and setup_vision_and_audience sit nearby and could plausibly overlap with the 'voice guide' portion. The agent has to infer that this is the read path for inspecting learned preferences before modifying them.

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