get_transcript

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: it writes to a local file (side effect) and returns only a file path, preview, and stats, not the full text. This is valuable transparency. It could mention error handling or cleanliness, but the key side effect and return shape are covered.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence provides distinct value: action, return type, and alternative tools. There is no redundancy or wasted wording.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers the most essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and when to use alternatives. It lacks details on the 'lang' parameter and file location, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 needed to explain parameters, but it doesn't. Neither 'url' nor 'lang' is described in the text; 'url' is implied but not explicitly stated, and 'lang' is completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 action ('Fetch a cleaned transcript') and resource ('write it to a local file'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings by noting that search_transcript / get_segment are for pulling detail on demand. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 provides guidance on when to use alternatives ('use search_transcript / get_segment, to pull detail on demand') and implicit context for this tool (e.g., when you need a quick preview/stats). It does not explicitly state 'use this when...' but the context is clear enough.

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