list_voices

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the tool name: the voice pool includes private clones and platform public voices, the output contains voice_id/name/preview sample, and the operation is free. The verb 'list' also implies a non-destructive read, and nothing contradicts the description.

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 with no wasted words. It leads with the core action and resource, then packs the scope, output fields, and cost into a compact remainder. Every clause earns its place.

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 zero-parameter list operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies what is listed, whose voices are included, what fields appear, and that it is free. It could have explicitly stated the return shape (e.g., an array of voice objects), but the stated fields make this reasonably clear.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so parameter semantics are not a concern. The rule for 0-parameter tools sets a baseline of 4; the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps and instead describes output content, which is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists available voices, and clarifies the scope as private cloned voices plus platform public voices. It also names the returned fields (voice_id, name, preview sample), clearly distinguishing this listing tool from voice-mutating siblings like clone_voice, delete_voice, and speak_with_voice.

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 this is the tool to call when the agent needs to know which voices are available, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as clone_voice, assign_voices, or speak_with_voice. There is clear context but no when-not or alternative routing guidance.

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