simplengat_list_voices

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; 'List' and 'GET /api/v1/voices' clearly signal a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It does not mention response format or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter list operation the core behavioral trait is adequately transparent.

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 concise sentence with the key action, resource, and endpoint, with no filler. Every word carries information.

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 zero-parameter list endpoint, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose and HTTP method. The only slight gap is the unexpanded 'R2V' acronym and lack of any note about response shape, though the meaning is largely inferable.

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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 is appropriate; the description would not benefit from parameter detail.

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') and resource ('supported voices') and scopes them to 'R2V video generation'. It also provides the endpoint, making the operation unmistakable and clearly distinct from the sibling generation/upscale/status tools.

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 phrase 'for R2V video generation' implies the tool is used when the agent needs available voice options for that workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or any exclusions, so the guidance is only implied.

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