export_transcript

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses important preconditions: transcript must be `completed` and an API key must be configured. It does not describe the exact response shape, error behavior, or whether the operation affects billing, but it does make the tool's read-oriented export behavior clear.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. Two sentences cover the action, formats, supported options, and two critical preconditions, with no filler or redundant restatement.

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 tool with eight parameters, all parameters are documented in the schema, and the description covers the preconditions and output formats. The main gap is that there is no mention of the exact successful response content, but for an export tool the response type is largely implied by the format choices.

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 100%, so the parameter semantics are already fully documented. The description groups the parameters as "segmentation knobs" but adds little beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 a specific action ("Export"), a specific resource ("Scriptivox transcript"), and the exact output formats (SRT, WebVTT, plain text). It also adds the "completed" status requirement, which separates it from transcription creation and status-checking sibling 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?

The description explicitly says this tool requires a transcript in `completed` status and a configured API key, giving an agent actionable preconditions for correct use. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the only export tool in the sibling set is clearly scoped by these requirements.

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