conversation_transcript

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

The description indicates a read-only operation ('Retrieves') and describes the output structure. Since annotations do not include readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, the description effectively communicates the non-destructive nature. However, it lacks details on potential error conditions or performance implications (e.g., large transcripts).

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 concise sentences: the first states the action and included content, the second describes the format. No redundant information. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output format and contents. It could mention handling of invalid conversationIds or pagination for long transcripts, but the current information is sufficient for typical use.

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 single parameter conversationId is fully described in the schema with format and example. The description adds value by explaining the transcript contents (speaker labels, timestamps, sentiment) but does not add new semantic details about the parameter itself. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 uses 'Retrieves' as a verb and specifies the resource as a 'structured transcript' with details on what it includes (speaker labels, utterance timestamps, sentiment annotations). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like conversation_sentiment and conversation_topics, which focus on specific aspects.

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 for obtaining a full transcript, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., use conversation_sentiment for sentiment only). No when-not or prerequisite conditions are provided.

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