get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the non-obvious semantic that the no-asset_id mode returns 'only words that survive the edit', which is valuable. But it is silent on error conditions, whether an un-transcribed project returns empty, and any cost/latency characteristics of reading a full transcript.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the mode distinction and the filter behavior. No filler. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('With asset_id: source time') but nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers the two mode branches and the filter that govern the result set. The remaining gap is the unexplained start/end windowing, which matters for a range-based read on a 5-parameter tool.

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 compensate. It explains asset_id and query meaningfully (source vs edited timeline, substring filtering), but start and end — two numeric bounds with a default of 0 — get no explanation of units or inclusivity, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Read a transcript as timestamped lines') and goes further by describing two distinct output modes tied to asset_id. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like transcribe or import_transcript, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear conditional: supply asset_id for source-time readings, omit it for the edited timeline. That is genuine when-to-use guidance for the main branch point. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over transcribe/get_timeline or what to do if no transcript exists yet.

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