ghl_voice_ai_get_agents

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'List Voice AI agents,' which implies a read-only operation, but it fails to mention the required locationId parameter, pagination behavior, or the fallback to GHL_LOCATION_ID. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 extremely concise (four words), but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. It lacks necessary context about parameters and behavior. It is not wordy, but it does not earn high marks for structure because it fails to convey important details.

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 has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides minimal context and does not explain the return format (presumably a list of agents), pagination semantics, or locationId requirements. Given the complexity of sibling tools, this description is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 33% (locationId has a description, but page and pageSize do not). The tool description adds no parameter information, so it does not compensate for the low coverage. The fallback behavior for locationId is only in the schema, not in the description, making the semantics incomplete.

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 'List Voice AI agents' clearly identifies the operation (list) and the resource (Voice AI agents), with the 'Voice AI' prefix distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_agent_studio_get_agents and ghl_conversation_ai_search_agents. It effectively differentiates from the singular ghl_voice_ai_get_agent.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it returns a paginated list, nor does it clarify when to prefer this over ghl_voice_ai_get_agent or other agent-listing tools. The only implied usage is from the name and description, which is insufficient.

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