List Zero Transcripts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds a key behavioral trait not present in annotations: it does not load transcript turns, indicating a lightweight operation. It also implies recency ordering. No contradiction with annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and no redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to clarity, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and parameter usage. It does not explicitly describe the return format or ordering, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the presence of annotations covering safety.

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 already explain 'after' and 'before' as time boundaries, so the description's note about narrowing the time window adds marginal value. The limit parameter is self-explanatory when combined with its schema constraints. With schema coverage at 67%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('transcript records') with a distinguishing qualifier ('without loading transcript turns'), clearly differentiating it from tools like get_transcript. The tool name and title align well, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 use cases (listing metadata without turns) but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The instruction to 'use before or after' narrows the time window is parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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