get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that by default it does NOT return the transcript text, returns a `path` to a rendered file, and warns about context flooding. It also clarifies the inline alternative, providing essential behavioral expectations beyond the schema.

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?

Every sentence provides value: the first states the core output, the second explains the default and the reasoning, the third explains the inline alternative. Well-structured in two readable paragraphs with no redundancy.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, default vs. inline modes, and the file path usage. It could be more explicit about when to prefer search_transcripts, but given the sibling list, the description is sufficiently complete for effective invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: `limit` and `offset` are explained as controlling a slice of segment lines, and `meeting_id` is implied via 'meeting transcript'. The distinction between default (no text) and passing `limit` clarifies the meaning of the parameter effectively.

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 tool provides 'the meeting transcript, with resolved speaker names and clock timestamps' and distinguishes itself by describing its default behavior (metadata plus path, not text). The lack of an explicit verb like 'retrieves' is compensated by the tool name and the detailed description of what is returned.

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?

It explains when to use the default mode (avoid flooding context) versus when to pass `limit`/`offset` for inline text (e.g., no filesystem access). This gives clear usage context, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like search_transcripts as alternatives.

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