Voices List

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the three sources searched (project/voices, the $ISMAIL_VOICES environment variable, and built-ins) and the implicit read-only nature of a list operation. It does not spell out auth requirements, ordering, or rate limits, but the source-scope disclosure is substantial context beyond the schema.

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 definition is front-loaded with what is listed and where, followed by the actionable usage note. Two sentences plus a usage clause carry real information with little waste; the inline JSON example is justified because it shows the exact consume format.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and an existing output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers what is listed, from which sources, and how to use the result. The main remaining gap is the undocumented 'project' parameter, but otherwise an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'project' parameter is never explicitly explained. The '<project>/voices/' path notation hints that the parameter selects which project's voices are scanned, but the description does not define its meaning, default behavior (null), or what omitting it does, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 precisely defines the two resource types (voice modules = Python files, mimic profiles = measured from recordings) plus their search locations. It also distinguishes itself from the companion voice_help by explaining that voice_help shows the detail view, though it does not contrast against presets_list or sound_list.

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?

Explains the follow-up path clearly: use a discovered voice as {"type": "code", "voice": "<name>"} or its preset, and route to voice_help(name) for details. It gives clear context for when this tool is the entry point, but offers no explicit exclusions versus sibling listers.

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