list_speakers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the entity composition ('voice + base delivery') and that workspace filtering is optional, but it omits explicit statements about read-only semantics, default behavior when workspace is null, or any side effects, leaving some assumptions implicit.

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 a single sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Every phrase adds value: 'saved speakers' clarifies scope, the parenthetical defines the entity, and the final clause explains the optional parameter.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is largely complete, covering the resource, entity composition, and scoping. It could be slightly clearer about whether omitting workspace returns all speakers, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity and existing output schema.

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%, but the single 'workspace' parameter is addressed by the description's 'optionally within one workspace', which conveys that the parameter is an optional filter. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default, though it does not elaborate on accepted workspace identifiers or behavior when omitted beyond the schema's type and default.

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 ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('saved speakers'), further clarifying that speakers consist of 'voice + base delivery'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_voices, which target a different resource, and the optional workspace scoping is explicitly stated.

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 explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as list_voices or list_profiles, nor does it name exclusions or alternatives. The phrase 'optionally within one workspace' hints at a common use case, but the usage guidance is essentially implied by the resource name and parenthetical rather than spelled out.

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