voice_access_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Check' implies a read-only operation and it usefully specifies two distinct conditions (installed AND enabled), but it says nothing about required device/connection state or what happens when the check fails.

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 word earns its place and the resource is identified immediately.

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 zero-parameter check the description covers what is being verified, but with no output schema it leaves the return value unexplained (boolean vs. status string vs. error when not installed), and omits the device-connection prerequisite.

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 no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for 0 params applies.

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 (Check) and a specific resource (Google Voice Access installed and enabled). It is clearly distinguishable from the voice_tap/voice_command siblings, which issue commands rather than report status, though the description doesn't name that distinction 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?

The use case is implied — verify Voice Access is available before relying on voice_tap or voice_command — but never stated. There are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions (e.g., a device must be selected first).

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