list_phonemizers

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose that the returned records include type, name, tag, language, and author. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether the list is paginated or exhaustive, or what happens with an unrecognized language code.

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?

Front-loads the resource and its returned fields before the filtering hint, with no filler. The full repetition of the same content in Japanese roughly doubles the length, which is defensible for localization but is not free.

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 single-optional-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed and what fields come back. It leaves the enumeration semantics (ordering, pagination, empty result behavior) unaddressed, which is a modest but real gap.

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 schema gives a bare optional `language` string at 0% coverage, and the description compensates by supplying example values ("EN", "JA") that reveal the expected code format. It stops short of saying whether matching is case-sensitive or whether unknown codes yield an empty list.

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-and-resource pair: lists installed phonemizers and enumerates the fields returned (type, name, tag, language, author). An agent can tell it enumerates available phonemizers rather than ranking or processing them, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling rank_phonemizers.

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?

Gives concrete filter usage — pass a language such as "EN" or "JA" — which implies the intended use case for narrowing results. It does not say when to prefer this over rank_phonemizers or what to do when no filter is needed, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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