Read the transcript

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior for the search mode ('returns hits with one segment of context each side') and the cache dependency, but says nothing about what a plain read returns or what happens if no cached transcript exists.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The phrasing 'optionally a time range' is slightly compressed but nothing is wasted.

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?

With six parameters, no output schema and a read-only annotation, the description covers the main read and search behaviors but omits the cache prerequisite, the meaning of model/language, and the shape of a non-search response. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool whose return value is undocumented elsewhere.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema documents path, from, to and search itself, and the description only reframes those generically. The undocumented 'model' and 'language' parameters receive no explanation in either place, and the description adds no format detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Reads the cached transcript') plus two modes (time range, phrase search). 'Cached' implicitly separates it from the transcribe sibling, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 three usage modes are implied by 'optionally a time range, or searches it for a phrase', which gives an agent a rough idea of when each mode applies. However, it never states the prerequisite that a transcript must already exist (use brief_transcribe first) or when to prefer brief_slice or brief_export instead.

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