voice_learn

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context: 'Takes a few seconds,' source-specific requirements ('needs path' for chatgpt/files), and the notion of refreshing. However, it does not explicitly clarify the default replace-vs-append behavior or potential side effects beyond what the schema already states. The phrase 'Build or refresh' is somewhat ambiguous.

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 two sentences and efficiently front-loads the purpose: first sentence defines the action, second sentence lists sources and timing. No filler or redundancy; every clause contributes.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, what sources exist, prerequisites, and when to run it. It could be improved by explicitly stating the default append behavior, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail to the 'source' enum by explaining each value (e.g., 'claude-history' is local Claude Code history, 'chatgpt' needs a conversations.json export, 'files' is a folder of writing). It also notes the path requirement for two sources, reinforcing the schema.

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 starts with 'Build or refresh the voiceprint from the user's own writing,' which clearly states the action (build/refresh) and the resource (voiceprint). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like voice_get (retrieve) and voice_score (evaluate) by focusing on creation/update.

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 gives explicit timing: 'Run this once at setup, or again to fold in newer writing.' It also details the source options and prerequisites. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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