list_voices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to indicate whether the results are cached, the expected return format (e.g., list of IDs vs. objects), or if there are rate limits. The statement is purely functional.

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?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no redundant words. Given the simplicity of this parameter-less list operation, the length is appropriate and front-loaded.

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?

While the description covers the basic purpose, it lacks information about the return structure since no output schema exists. For a catalog-listing tool, mentioning that it returns all configured voice options or the data format would improve completeness.

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 accepts zero parameters. Per the evaluation rules, the baseline score for zero-parameter tools is 4. The schema requires no additional semantic clarification from the description.

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 '利用可能な音声の一覧を取得' (Get a list of available voices) provides a clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_voices_in_use' or 'get_random_unused_voice', which also retrieve voice information.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_voices_in_use' (for active voices) or 'get_random_unused_voice' (for random selection). There are no prerequisites or exclusion criteria stated.

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