list_clone_bundles

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the tool returns a list with specific fields, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or disclose any side effects. The 'List' verb implies safety, but explicit disclosure would improve 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 three sentences, each adding value: first defines purpose, second lists output fields, third gives broader context. It is front-loaded and avoids 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 listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is listed, what fields are in each entry, and how it fits into the broader workflow (pairing with ingestion and referencing a memory document).

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 schema coverage is 100%. Per the calibration, with no parameters the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info because none exist, but it provides context about what the output contains.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'training-bundle catalog', specifying it is for audio/video recordings marked as candidates for voice-clone training. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like `list_voice_clones` by focusing on pre-training bundles rather than finished clones.

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 indicates the tool pairs with InstaBio voice-clone ingestion, giving context for its use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, though the sibling list implies distinct purposes.

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