listVoiceClones

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It conveys the key scoping behavior (only the authenticated user's clones). But it does not disclose potential pagination, response shape, or whether any additional limits or side effects exist beyond the implied read-only 'List' action.

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?

A single, concise 9-word sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple and the parameter is fully documented, but there is no output schema and the description does not mention the response format, pagination, or the system-API-key behavior that affects the owner_email parameter. This leaves an agent with some uncertainty about post-invocation expectations.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter (owner_email), so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantic heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('voice clones') and a clear scope ('owned by the authenticated user'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like listVoices and listEdgeVoices, which target different object types.

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?

It clearly states the context: this tool returns voice clones that belong to the authenticated user. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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