voice_status

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal the scope of inspection (provider, keys, bridge), which implies a non-mutating check, but it never states that the operation is read-only, side-effect free, or what a failed/unconfigured state looks like.

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. Every listed item (provider, keys, bridge) is substantive and none is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not enumerate return values, and the tool is simple (0 params, no nesting). What remains missing is a short note on when to reach for it, but for a trivial status endpoint this is close to sufficient.

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 no parameter semantics are needed. The description sensibly spends its words on what the no-arg call reports rather than inventing arguments.

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 ("Checks") and resource ("status of the voice output system") and enumerates what is inspected: active provider, configured keys, and bridge. It is clearly a read/diagnostic tool separable from the mutating siblings voice_speak and voice_stop, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not say to run this before voice_speak to verify configuration, nor does it mention any precondition, failure mode, or alternative. The diagnostic intent is only implied by the word "status."

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