listVoicings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists presets and shows current selection, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only (implied by 'list' but not explicit), what format the list returns, if there's pagination, or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('list available voicing presets') and adds secondary functionality ('show current selection'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic understanding of what the tool does. However, it lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, current selection indication) and behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, any limitations). For a simple listing tool, this is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement in completeness.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are none to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since no parameters exist, and the description adequately covers the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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 resource 'available voicing presets', and adds 'show current selection' which specifies additional functionality. It distinguishes from siblings like 'getVoicing' (which likely retrieves a single voicing) and 'setVoicing' (which modifies). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'nextVoicing' or 'previousVoicing' which might cycle through presets.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for listing presets and showing current selection, but doesn't specify when this is preferable over 'getVoicing' (which might return current only) or when exploring available options before using 'setVoicing'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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