List speech voices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral nuance: names repeat across languages (fourteen Eddys) and gender is reported only 'where the system reports it', signaling potential missing data. This exceeds the baseline but stops short of describing output format in depth.

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?

Two sentences, fully front-loaded: the first states purpose and fields, the second adds a caveat and cross-reference. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence 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-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return fields and a critical usage caveat (duplicate names), plus a forward pointer to hs_speak. No missing context is needed for effective invocation.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter syntax but also needs none. Its note about the identifier and ambiguity pertains to output usage, not input, so no deductions are warranted.

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 a specific action ('List') and a specific resource ('installed speech synthesiser voices'), enumerating the fields returned (name, language, gender, full identifier). It stands apart from sibling tools like hs_speak, which uses voices, by focusing on enumeration and metadata.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: when names are ambiguous, use the identifier with hs_speak. This gives a clear when-to-use scenario and cross-reference to an alternative, fulfilling the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' criterion.

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