Maid-MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. 'Set' implies a mutation, but it doesn't disclose if this affects ongoing operations (e.g., interrupts current speech), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or how changes persist. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 mutation nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'current voice' means (e.g., for future 'speak' calls), success/failure conditions, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context for reliable use.

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 100%, with the schema documenting 'voiceId' as a string and noting 'ja-JP voices for Japanese accent'. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without compensation.

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 'Set the current voice' clearly states the action (set) and resource (voice), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_voices' or 'speak', but the verb 'set' implies configuration rather than listing or execution.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a voice must be active), exclusions, or relationships to siblings like 'list_voices' (which might provide valid voice IDs) or 'speak' (which might use the set voice).

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