list_echo_speakers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral fact that playback is not triggered, preventing a plausible misread; it says nothing about return contents, but that is a minor residual gap given the annotation coverage.

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?

A single clause pair with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the clarifying negation.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key behavioral caveat. It could note roughly what the returned entries look like (e.g., names/IDs) since no output schema exists, which is the only real 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter detail needed. The description correctly adds none, wasting no space on param semantics.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('configured explicit Echo speech destinations'), and adds a negating clause ('does not play audio') that separates it from audio-playing siblings like speak or speak_on_echo. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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 'does not play audio' clause implies when not to use it relative to speak/play_audio siblings, but no alternative is named explicitly and no positive context (e.g., 'use before speak_on_echo to discover destinations') is given.

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