get_voices_api_v1_audio_voices_get

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the response contains, or any side effects. The agent gets no sense of what invoking this tool entails.

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?

At only two words, it is excessively terse and lacks structure. Conciseness should not come at the expense of informativeness; key details are omitted.

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 no annotations, output schema, and a simple tool, the description is wholly inadequate. It fails to explain what voices are retrieved, whether they are pre-defined or dynamic, or any filtering criteria. The agent cannot reliably decide to use this 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema fully defines this aspect. Per guidelines, 0 params yields a baseline of 4, but the description adds no meaning beyond the name, so it does not exceed the baseline. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description neither harms nor helps.

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 'Get Voices' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what voices are returned (e.g., TTS voices, languages, styles) nor distinguish it from sibling tools like get_audio_config or speech.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions.

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