voice_get_user_state

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), lowering the burden. The description adds the endpoint location and a summary of returned fields, but adds no context about auth requirements, error conditions, or 404 behavior if the user is not in a voice channel.

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 tightly scoped sections (Purpose and Returns) with zero filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the endpoint path provides immediate orientation.

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 two-parameter read tool, the combination of annotations (read-only, idempotent), full schema coverage, and an output schema covers most needs. The description adds purpose and return-shape context. A brief note on error cases (e.g., user not in a voice channel) would make it fully complete, but it is already adequate.

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 description coverage is 100% — both guild_id and user_id are documented as 'Guild to query' and 'Member whose voice state to fetch.' The description adds no further parameter detail beyond hinting at {guild.id} and {user.id} in the endpoint path, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 ('Fetch') and names the exact resource ('a user's voice state in a guild'), backed by the full REST endpoint path. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like voice_get_current_user_state (current user only) and guild_modify_user_voice_state (modification, not fetch).

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 implied through the fetch verb and endpoint path — this tool queries a specific user's voice state in a specific guild. However, no explicit exclusions or alternatives are named (e.g., 'for your own state use voice_get_current_user_state'), so an agent must infer when to prefer this over the sibling tools.

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