get_voice_status

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/local scope, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by bounding the claim — it explicitly does not start recording and does not verify that live call audio is connected. That caveat prevents an agent from over-trusting the result as proof of a working audio path.

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 that packs scope, coverage, and explicit limitations with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and its scope/limitation statement is sufficient. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though a hint about what '阻塞原因' surfaces in the response would add marginal value.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds no bogus parameter guidance and instead frames the call as a parameterless status probe.

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?

Names a specific verb (检查/check) and enumerates the concrete resources inspected: local RVC engine, models, audio configuration, and blocking reasons. The negative clause (不启动录音) distinguishes it from start_voice_audio, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied as a diagnostic pre-check (it reports blocking reasons before audio starts), and the exclusion of recording is stated. However, it never says when to prefer this over siblings like list_local_models or list_voice_models, nor any prerequisites.

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