ateam_test_voice

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Details pipeline steps (session, caller verification, prompt, skill dispatch, response) and return fields (bot response, verification, tool calls, entities). Mentions simulation via text, avoiding misconception of actual audio. Could note side effects? Probably none.

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 sentences: first states purpose, second expands on pipeline and output, third gives usage recommendation. No fluff, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with key action.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, description covers pipeline steps, return data, and parameter effects. Lacks details on error handling or output format, but mentions key return items. Adequate for testing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value: clarifies messages simulates multi-turn, phone_number with example and auto-verification logic, timeout_ms default. This enriches understanding beyond schema definitions.

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?

Clearly states 'simulate a voice conversation with a deployed solution', specifies it runs full voice pipeline using text. Differentiates from sibling tools like ateam_conversation, ateam_test_pipeline, etc. by focusing on voice simulation end-to-end.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this to test voice-enabled solutions end-to-end without making a phone call.' Implicitly suggests when to use (testing) vs. making real calls. Could more clearly contrast with text conversation testing or other test tools.

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