get_voice_input

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'pending' and 'auto-delivered by default', but fails to describe return values, side effects (e.g., whether calling clears the queue), or whether it blocks for input. This is a significant gap for an unannotated tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that includes the core action and a useful parenthetical note. Every word earns its place, with zero redundancy.

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 simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the basic functionality but lacks context about the delivery mechanism, what constitutes 'pending', and how this interacts with auto-delivery. It is minimally sufficient but not thorough.

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 no parameters (0 params), so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-related meaning beyond the schema, but also does not detract from it.

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 'Get pending voice input from users' clearly states a specific verb (get) and resource (pending voice input). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'speak' (output) and 'voice_status' (status) by focusing on retrieving input.

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 phrase '(auto-delivered by default)' implies that this tool may be used for manually retrieving input when auto-delivery is not active, but it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like 'voice_status' or 'converse'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are provided.

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