voice_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It uses 'Check' to imply a read-only operation and describes the information returned (sample count, word count, build time, corpus stability). However, it does not state the return format, potential errors, or any prerequisites beyond the setup implication.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every phrase adds value. It is concise, structured, and free of redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, so the description must explain what it returns. It does so by listing the data points it provides, and it gives usage context. The only gap is the lack of explicit return structure, but that is acceptable for such a simple tool.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to add meaning for parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate, as there is nothing to describe.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('voiceprint'), and lists the exact aspects it assesses (sample count, word count, build time, corpus stability). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that get, score, verify, learn, note, or export voiceprints.

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 provides an explicit use case: 'Use this when you are not sure the user has set being-human up yet.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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