lbm_get_transcript

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds value by detailing what is returned (transcript text, model name, prompt text, metadata), which is beyond annotations and helps the agent understand the output.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: when to use, requirements, and return values. No wasted words, effectively front-loaded with usage context.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers return values. All required parameters are documented with dependencies. Minimal gaps given the tool's simplicity and strong annotations.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, already stating 'Result ID from lbm_list_results' and 'Project ID'. Description reiterates this dependency but adds no new semantic detail beyond schema, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states 'To read the full verbatim LLM response for a specific monitoring result', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like lbm_list_results by focusing on retrieving a single transcript rather than listing results.

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?

Description includes 'WHEN TO USE' and specifies prerequisites ('REQUIRES: project_id and result_id from lbm_list_results'), giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, though siblings are known.

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