get_voice_actors

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. It only states that it returns a list with details, but does not cover important aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with two sentences, but it is not optimally structured. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second describes the return, but it could be more front-loaded with key details. While not wasteful, it lacks emphasis on critical information like behavioral traits, given the absence of annotations.

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 complexity (a list retrieval tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions the return type but does not specify the structure of 'details' (e.g., names, IDs, availability), which is crucial for the agent to understand the output. This gap makes it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, which is efficient. However, it could have mentioned any implicit parameters or context, but since none exist, it meets the baseline for this dimension.

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: 'Get the list of voice actors.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('voice actors'), making it understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_credit_balance' or 'generate_voice', which could involve voice actors in different contexts, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 does not mention sibling tools or contexts where this tool is preferred, such as for listing available actors before generating voice, nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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