elevenlabs_list_voices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful context by disclosing the ELEVENLABS_API_KEY environment variable requirement, but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether it hits a rate limit, or what the voices are keyed by for downstream use.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the prerequisite. Nothing is padded or repeated from the tool name.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it needs to run. The one gap is not telling the agent that returned voices supply the voice identifier consumed by the sibling generation 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 ("List available ElevenLabs voices"), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the two ElevenLabs siblings (generate_speech, generate_captions_voice), though the verb difference makes the distinction reasonably inferable.

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 discovery step before calling elevenlabs_generate_speech or elevenlabs_generate_captions_voice, but neither sibling nor that workflow is named. The API-key prerequisite is the only explicit operational guidance given.

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