play_transcript_query_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the tool searches and plays, but it does not disclose side effects such as starting playback, changing session state, or what dry_run/rerender/processed do. The behavioral profile is far too thin.

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 one short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the parenthetical 'NL' shorthand is slightly unclear.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and plenty of related siblings, this description is far too minimal. It does not explain parameter behavior, playback side effects, or how to choose among related tools, so an agent cannot reliably invoke 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 seven parameters, but it only weakly maps to 'query'. There is no explanation of project_path, match_index, padding_sec, dry_run, rerender, or processed, leaving an agent unable to set them correctly.

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 compound action: search a transcript for a query and play the matching span. This clearly distinguishes it from pure-search and pure-playback siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_transcript_tool or play_audio_tool. The intended use case is only implied by the action description, with no exclusions or conditions.

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