Ai (read)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of what happens when a clip has no transcript, whether the transcript can be large/slow to fetch, or what the payload 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?

Two short clauses with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Its brevity is a virtue here, though the space saved is not reinvested in useful detail.

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?

The tool is structurally simple (one param, nested-free), but there is no output schema, so the description should at least characterize what a 'transcript' returns (plain text vs. segments vs. timestamps). That gap, plus the missing parameter semantics, leaves the definition thin for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only restates the name and type ('clip_id (string, required)'), which the schema already encodes, and adds no format hints, ID source, or constraints.

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 states a specific verb (retrieves) and resource (transcript for a clip), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not differentiate itself from sibling read tools like clip_read, so an agent must infer that this is transcript-specific rather than general clip 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?

No guidance on when to use this versus clip_read or other read tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only directive content is a restatement of the required parameter.

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