Maid-MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List available voices' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what the return format is (e.g., list of names, objects with properties), if there are rate limits, or if it's cached. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence ('List available voices') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core action and resource without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, usage context, or output. For a simple read operation, this might suffice, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to fully understand how to integrate it, such as what data is returned.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, but it correctly implies no inputs are required. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description aligns with the empty schema without introducing confusion.

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 'List available voices' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('available voices'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'set_voice' (which modifies voice) and 'speak' (which uses voice), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The description avoids tautology since 'list_voices' as a name could imply other actions, but the description clarifies it's about listing available options.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether it should be called before 'set_voice' or 'speak'), nor does it indicate if it's for discovery, configuration, or other contexts. With siblings like 'set_voice' and 'speak', some implicit usage might be inferred, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative tools are stated.

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