peer_transcript

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden but only states 'export', implying a read operation. It does not disclose permission requirements, mutability, or side effects. No information on output format or behavior for edge cases.

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?

Extremely concise at 4 words, front-loading the core action. However, conciseness sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified for reliable use.

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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description lacks information on 'recent' semantics, output structure, pagination, or error handling. Incomplete for effective agent 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?

Schema coverage is 0%; description adds no meaning to parameters beyond their names. The required session_id, optional max_turns, and enum format are not explained. No examples or clarifications provided.

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 verb 'export' and resource 'transcript turns', indicating functionality. It distinguishes from siblings like peer_list_sessions (list sessions) and peer_summarize (summarize) by focusing on exporting recent turns. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from similar tools.

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 tool versus alternatives like peer_turn, peer_list_sessions, or peer_summarize. Missing context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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