voice_get_text

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing side effects and safety. It states it returns the complete transcript buffer, which implies a non-destructive read, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or that it does not clear the buffer. This is a minor gap for a get-style tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. However, the second sentence ('Returns the complete transcript buffer.') is largely redundant with the first, providing only slight clarification. No extra fluff, but a small redundancy prevents a perfect 5.

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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it fails to explicitly relate to sibling tools, particularly voice_get_new, leaving the agent to infer when to choose one over the other. Adding a brief contrast would significantly 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 the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). There are no parameter details for the description to elaborate on. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter info.

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 function: 'Get all transcribed text since the server started.' It specifies the resource (transcribed text) and the scope (since server start), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool voice_get_new which likely retrieves incremental text.

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 implies usage—when you need the full transcript—but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It could have contrasted with voice_get_new (e.g., 'for only new text, use voice_get_new'). This is a typical case of implied usage without clear guidance.

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