transcript_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering ('newest first'), which the schema does not express, and clarifies the semantic intent of the status filter. However it omits pagination/result-cap behavior, authentication or workspace scoping, and whether all jobs are returned by default.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and with no filler. The long status enumeration is verbose but is the highest-value information in the description, so it earns its space.

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 explained. Still, for a three-parameter list tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the `query` filter and the `limit` behavior unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It does enumerate the allowed `status` values (queued, running, paused, done, failed, cancelled, interrupted), which the schema lacks entirely, but it says nothing about `limit` or `query`, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 resource (recent jobs) and a scope (newest first), plus a filtering mode, so an agent can tell it is a list/board view rather than a single-record fetch. It does not name any sibling (transcript_get, transcript_search, transcript_status) to sharpen the distinction, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for a board-level view of what is in flight, what is stuck and what is finished,' which suggests the monitoring/list use case. There is no explicit when-to-use versus transcript_search or transcript_status, and no statement of when not to use it.

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