screenslick_list_voices

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

With no annotations provided, the description successfully conveys behavioral traits: it lists voices, distinguishes local from premium, and warns about credit consumption and confirmation for premium voices. This goes beyond the empty input schema, though it could mention whether the list is exhaustive or any other side effects.

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 consists of two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important behavioral context. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the key distinction between local and premium voices and the implications of using premium voices. It could be more specific about what 'local' means, but that is a minor gap.

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 no parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter information. It correctly explains the output's context without parameter details.

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 that the tool lists ScreenSlick local and premium voiceover voices, distinguishing between the two types. This is a specific verb-resource combination that separates it from sibling tools like 'screenslick_generate_voiceover' or 'screenslick_preview_voiceover', which perform different actions.

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 provides context for usage by noting that premium Gemini voices consume credits and require user confirmation, which informs the agent about potential costs and interactions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, though the purpose is self-evident.

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