gemini_list_voices_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. The description states it lists voices, which is a read operation, but doesn't clarify safety profile (e.g., whether it makes network calls, performance characteristics, or response format). With zero annotationsarena, the description could add more behavioral context but doesn't.evetude

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 sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action (List) and resource (available voices for text-to-speech). Perfectly concise for a zero-parameter read-only list operation.

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 that this is a zero-parameter, read-only list operation with an output schema (which presumably describes the voices returned), a one-sentence description may be sufficient. The output schema provides return value details. The description is complete enough for the tool's simplicity, though mentioning typical use cases (e.g., before calling gemini_speak_tool) could add value. This edges above a minimum viable 3.

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 has 0 parameters chip with 100% schema description coverage (vacuously true since no properties exist). With no parameters, the schema cannot contribute meaningr temp, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters since there are none, and it clearly states the resource being listed.

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 clearly states the action (List) and the resource (available voices for text-to-speech). It distinguishes from siblings well since no other sibling tool deals with voice listing. However, it doesn't mention details like whether the output includes voice names, languages, or other attributes, which would enhance purpose clarity.

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 implies usage context (when you need to know available TTS voices) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives or when not to use it. For a simple list tool with no parametersinates, this is adequate but could be improved by noting that it should be called before using gemini_speak_tool with a specified voice.

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