Get Zero Transcripts

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that it searches titles/summaries and does not return full turns. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or how boundary parameters affect results.

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?

A single sentence that states the action, scope, and an important limitation. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently front-loaded with the core behavior.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain limit semantics, the meaning of 'OpenClaw-compatible,' or how this tool differs from the sibling search_transcripts. An agent cannot fully determine correct invocation or tool selection from the provided information.

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 after and before, but the required query parameter has no schema description and limit is entirely undocumented. The description clarifies that query searches titles and summaries, but it does not explain limit semantics or add anything beyond the schema for the boundary parameters. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate more but does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'search across transcript titles and summaries' and adds the qualifier 'without full turns,' which distinguishes it from full-transcript retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool search_transcripts, leaving some ambiguity about what makes this tool unique.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The 'without full turns' phrase implies it is for metadata-level search, but there is no mention of using get_transcript for full transcripts or search_transcripts for a different search scope. An agent receives no routing guidance among the many sibling tools.

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