fish_audio_list_references

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden, but it omits details like whether this is read-only, authentication requirements, or what 'configured' entails.

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 sentence with no extra words. It is front-loaded and every word 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 simple list tool with no parameters, the description is sufficient to convey the purpose. However, it lacks details about the output format (e.g., array of references) which would improve 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 zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%. Description does not add parameter-level meaning but is not required to. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters.

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 'List all configured voice references' with a specific verb 'list' and resource 'voice references'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tool fish_audio_tts, which implies text-to-speech synthesis.

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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus fish_audio_tts. The context is implied by the resource 'voice references', but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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