voicememos_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the categories of information returned, which is useful, but does not state that the tool is read-only, side-effect-free, or whether any permissions or rate limits apply.

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 is essentially a noun phrase rather than a full sentence, but every item listed 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 zero-argument status tool, the description adequately names the returned categories, but without an output schema it leaves the return format and granularity (aggregate counts versus per-file details) unclear. It also does not help an agent choose it over voicememos_transcribe_status.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no additional semantic burden. The description appropriately does not discuss parameter syntax.

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 enumerates the specific status content returned: library size, transcription status counts, worker health, and configuration. It is clear what the tool reports, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from voicememos_transcribe_status.

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 listed contents imply a diagnostic or overview use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus voicememos_transcribe_status or other status-adjacent siblings.

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