get_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. It discloses that include_cloned requires auth and explains supportedModels interpretation. However, it does not mention other traits like rate limits, pagination, or whether it is a read-only operation, which is implied but not explicit.

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 three sentences. First states purpose, second gives a key usage example, third explains a special model case. No redundant information.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: return fields, usage with update_agent, and the cloned voice option. It could mention pagination or limits, but for a list tool it is fairly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by noting that include_cloned requires auth and provides context on how parameters relate to voice selection. It does not repeat schema details but supplements them.

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 'List available voices for agents' and specifies return fields (IDs, names, gender, language, supported models). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by detailing the relationship with update_agent and cloned voices.

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 clear usage context: how to use the voiceId with update_agent's synthesizer.voiceConfig, and how to interpret Lightning V3.1 Pro voices. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same purpose, so it's sufficient.

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