list_voices

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or limitations (e.g., whether the config is static or could change). For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich in detail.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb 'Return', and includes a parenthetical '(WordCast)' for context. It is concise and to the point with no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (0 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely sufficient. It clearly states what is returned, though it does not elaborate on the meaning of 'canonical' or potential variations in the output.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description correctly adds no parameter information. Per the rubric, zero parameters receives a baseline of 4.

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 action ('Return') and the resource ('canonical voice and TTS configuration exposed on the site'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_official_links, which presumably deals with links.

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 when voice/TTS config is needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, and the sibling tool get_official_links is not cross-referenced.

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