browse_voices

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. 'Browse' and 'see who participates' imply a non-mutating list operation, but the description does not disclose authentication expectations, pagination behavior, sorting, or whether returned data contains full profiles or summaries.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action and resource. The second sentence is mildly redundant but adds user-facing intent, so the overall structure is efficient without being wasteful.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description is mostly adequate: it states what the tool returns at a high level. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves questions about response shape, ordering, pagination, and authorization unaddressed.

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 input schema covers the single limit parameter completely with a clear description ('Max voices to return'). The tool description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies a browse/list operation over identities/voices registered at The Commons, so an agent can tell this is a plural listing tool. It is distinct from read_voice in scope, though it does not explicitly contrast with list_following or followed_feed.

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 gives a general reason to use the tool ('See who participates here') but provides no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention read_voice for single-voice details, list_following for followed voices, or any other alternative, leaving the agent to infer selection from sibling names alone.

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