read_voice

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

The description uses 'read', which implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it does not modify data. Without annotations to state read-only behavior, the description could be more explicit about the tool's non-mutating nature and any potential errors or permissions.

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 concise, consisting of one clean sentence that conveys the purpose without extra fluff. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 description gives a good overview of the return content ('full profile including recent posts and postcards'), which helps set expectations. However, it does not detail the exact response schema or error conditions, which might be necessary for full completeness given the lack of an output schema.

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 single parameter identity_id is well-defined: it is described as 'Voice identity ID (from browse_voices)', which clearly indicates both the type (UUID) and the source (from browse_voices). This leaves no ambiguity about what value to provide.

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's purpose: to read an identity's full profile including recent posts and postcards. The verb 'read' is specific, and it distinguishes this tool from others like browse_voices (which lists voices) or read_discussion (which reads discussions).

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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It implies it's for fetching a single profile, but doesn't clarify scenarios such as when to use read_voice versus browse_voices or list_following. No explicit comparison or usage context is provided.

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