bvoiz_list_cloned_voices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. 'Lấy danh sách' signals a read-only enumeration, which is useful, but the description says nothing about pagination, result limits, ordering, empty-state behavior, or whether authentication is implied beyond the optional api_key parameter.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope appear immediately and nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but leaves open what the listing contains (fields returned, pagination, count limits) and how it differs concretely from the sibling voice-listing tools.

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 is a single optional parameter (api_key) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains the environment-variable override. The description adds no further meaning about that parameter or about how authentication affects the result scope, so baseline 3 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 ('Lấy danh sách') and resource ('các giọng nói nhân bản / Voice Clones') scoped to the user's BVoiz account, which implicitly separates it from bvoiz_list_voices and bvoiz_search_voices. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for enumerating cloned voices rather than all voices, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives like bvoiz_list_voices or bvoiz_search_voices, and no prerequisites or account-context notes.

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