read_voice

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation context: results are bounded, large bodies are excerpts with exact source links, and full history is not included. This helps set expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds important behavioral constraints without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the main expectations: what is read, the bounded nature, excerpt behavior, and source links. It does not specify return format in detail, but no output schema exists and the description gives sufficient operational clarity.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single required parameter, identity_id, and the tool description does not explain what this parameter represents or how it is used. The parameter name and uuid format are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not add meaningful clarification.

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 the tool reads a public profile plus bounded recent post/postcard snapshots, using a specific verb and resource. It conveys the tool's scope well, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like browse_voices or read_text.

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 implies usage for reading public profile data and recent snapshots, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as browse_voices or read_text. There are no when-not conditions or alternative tool mentions.

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