transcript_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the preview/full default rationale, the flooding risk, the presence of download_urls/view_url, and that running jobs return committed text with partial:true. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or error behavior.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then format/mode, then the download_urls recommendation, then the running-job caveat. Mostly efficient, though the mode paragraph re-states its rationale ('the default exists to stop unprompted flooding, not to refuse a direct request') at slight length.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description usefully flags download_urls, view_url and partial:true. The only real gap for a 4-parameter tool is the undocumented max_chars, which matters given 0% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents format (txt/srt/vtt/json) and mode (preview/full), but leaves max_chars and job_id unexplained, so half the parameters remain undocumented in both schema and prose.

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+resource ('Transcript text, rendered from segments on demand'), which implicitly separates it from transcript_segments (raw segments) and transcript_export. However, it never names a sibling tool to route the agent, so differentiation from the 12 sibling tools rests on inference.

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?

Gives clear when/when-not guidance for mode: preview is the deliberate default to avoid context flooding, full is for a direct whole-transcript request, and download_urls are recommended for long transcripts. It stops short of naming the alternative siblings (e.g., transcript_export) that would make the routing fully explicit.

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