get_voice_settings

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a non-mutating read, but does not say what happens if a voice has no saved settings (defaults vs error), what permission or ownership is needed, or what the response looks like.

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?

One short sentence with a front-loaded verb and no filler, so it is efficient. The brevity, however, reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition gives a minimum viable statement of what it returns. It leaves gaps around when to call it versus get_voice or update_voice_settings and how the voice_id should be obtained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter voice_id, so the description must compensate. It only hints that the ID identifies an ElevenLabs voice, without stating format, source (e.g., from list_voices or get_voice), or error behaviour for unknown IDs.

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 names a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('saved settings for an ElevenLabs voice'), which is enough to distinguish it from generation tools. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling, update_voice_settings, but the read/write split is clear from the verb.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of the update_voice_settings alternative, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only signal is the implied read semantics of 'Read the saved settings'.

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