get_transcription_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the most important trait explicitly: 'Access level: read', which tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating lookup. It also sketches the return payload, though it omits anything about idempotency or side effects — acceptable for a read-only getter, but the disclosure stops short of a full behavioral profile.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by access level and return shape. Every clause is short and scannable, though the 'Returns:' line restates information that the output schema already provides, which is slightly 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 one-optional-parameter read tool, the description covers what it does, the access level, and the conditional behavior tied to project_id, which is enough to invoke correctly. An output schema exists so the enumerated return contents are a minor duplication rather than a necessity.

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?

Only one optional parameter exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('If given, also returns recommended scope_suggestions for this project'). The description repeats that schema text almost verbatim ('if project_id given) scope_suggestions'), adding no new meaning such as format or valid ID sources. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('combined rule+lesson template guide and workflow instructions'), making it instantly distinguishable from get_rule_template and get_lesson_template via the word 'combined'. However, it does not explicitly name those siblings as the non-combined alternatives, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 phrase 'for turning a transcript into pending proposals' gives a clear purpose context but no when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like extract_rules_from_transcript, extract_lessons_from_transcript, or create_pending_proposal. There is no exclusion or ordering rule ('call this before X'), so usage is only implied.

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