extract_lessons_from_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly discharges it: it declares the access level (analyze), states that it has no side effects (creates no proposal), and names the returned payload fields. It does not discuss auth requirements or any limits, but for a read-only prep tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and readable, but the return fields are listed twice: once in prose ('the clean text, the project's scope chain... existing lessons... template') and again in the 'Returns: JSON with clean_text, scopes, existing_lessons, template' line. Since an output schema already exists, that second enumeration is largely redundant.

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 2-parameter prep tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, side-effect status, access level, and the follow-up call, which is enough for correct invocation. The only shortfall is minor redundancy rather than a missing piece.

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 both parameters (text, project_id) are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes this at a high level ('clean text', 'project's scope chain'), adding no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (return/extract) and resource (candidate lessons from a transcript) and enumerates exactly what it provides: clean text, scope chain, existing lessons, template. It also positions itself against the sibling create_pending_proposal, so the agent can separate this read/prep step from the write step.

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?

Explicitly notes it 'does not itself create any proposal — call create_pending_proposal per candidate,' which clarifies the workflow and the alternative. It lacks an explicit statement of when this should be preferred over the parallel extract_rules_from_transcript, leaving that inference to the reader.

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