Voices Get Voices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral scope by specifying that the list includes both premade and cloned voices and implies the returned IDs can be used elsewhere, which is useful context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences: the first succinctly states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds value with no 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 read-only list tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, its scope, and when to use alternatives. The optional provider parameter is implicitly covered by the ElevenLabs mention, making the description sufficiently 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?

The schema has one optional provider parameter with an enum of 'elevenlabs', and the description mentions 'premade ElevenLabs voices,' which aligns with that constraint but does not explicitly explain the parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description's indirect reference provides some compensation, but it could be more explicit.

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 lists available voices, specifically premade ElevenLabs voices and org-cloned ones. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-lipsync and tts_create.

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 explicitly provides alternatives: use create-lipsync for making an image/video speak and tts_create for standalone audio. It clearly says when to use this tool (to list voices) and when not, making the usage context unambiguous.

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