treeflow_get_voice_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does indicate this is a read operation ('Obtiene') and enumerates the returned configuration fields. It does not mention error conditions, authorization requirements, or the absence of side effects, but for a simple config getter the core behavior is reasonably transparent.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main purpose and then lists the specific configuration details. Every element adds useful information, with no tautology, filler, or repetition of the schema.

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 the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it identifies the operation, the target resource, and the expected return contents. It could be slightly richer by explicitly noting the result is per tree_id beyond the schema, but for a straightforward getter this is essentially complete.

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 100%, with tree_id described as 'ID del bot/árbol'. The tool description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, though it does implicitly connect the parameter to the bot whose voice configuration is being retrieved. This matches the baseline for well-documented parameters.

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 states the operation ('Obtiene la configuración de voz del bot') and the specific resource: the bot's voice configuration. It further details the contents (STT/TTS status, model, language, voice, speed), making its purpose unambiguous and easily distinguishable from sibling tools like treeflow_update_voice_config.

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 makes the read-only nature of the tool evident, and the sibling list includes treeflow_update_voice_config, which implies when to use the update counterpart. However, it does not explicitly state conditions for use or contrast itself with the update tool, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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