Get Zero Transcript by ID

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that the tool returns only query-matched speaker blocks rather than the full transcript, and that tasks are optional. This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail error behavior or the effect of each boolean flag.

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 a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core lookup action and without filler. The term 'OpenClaw-compatible' adds some context but is unexplained jargon, which slightly reduces 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?

Given no output schema and four parameters, the description provides a useful high-level return shape but omits details about how the required include_turns and include_tasks booleans control the result, what happens when query is omitted, and how this tool differs from get_transcript or search_transcripts. These are notable gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps query to 'query-matched speaker blocks', transcriptId to 'by id', and include_tasks to 'optional tasks', but it never explicitly mentions include_turns. An agent can infer that turns correspond to speaker blocks, but the mapping is not fully spelled out for all four parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('lookup') and resource ('transcript by id'), and scopes the return payload to the summary, optional tasks, and query-matched speaker blocks. This content-based scoping distinguishes it from a full-transcript fetch such as the sibling get_transcript, even though that sibling is not named.

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 when the tool is appropriate: when you need a transcript by ID with summary, optional tasks, or filtered speaker blocks. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or guidance about when to prefer get_transcript or search_transcripts instead, leaving that to inference.

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