get_voice_regions

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

The description states it 'gets' a list, implying a read-only operation, but with no annotations, it carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention return format, rate limits, auth requirements, or side-effect-free nature beyond the verb. This leaves clear gaps.

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, compact sentence that directly states the function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and immediately clear.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the essential purpose. It lacks details about the structure of the returned voice regions (e.g., IDs, names), but this is not critical for such a simple listing tool. The description is complete enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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 the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. Per the rubric, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4; the description does not need to explain parameter semantics since none exist.

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's purpose: retrieving the list of available Discord voice regions. It uses a specific verb ('取得') and resource ('ボイスリージョン一覧'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools targeting messages, servers, channels, users, roles, and webhooks.

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 context is obvious: this tool is used when you need voice regions. There is no alternate tool for voice regions among siblings, so no exclusions are needed. However, the description does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, preventing a perfect score.

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