fireflies_get_transcripts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively adds context beyond the input schema by describing performance traits: 'this operation may take longer for large datasets and might timeout' and 'If a timeout occurs, a minimal set of transcript data will be returned.' This covers critical behavioral aspects like latency, timeout risks, and fallback behavior, which are not captured in the schema. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling details, preventing a perfect score.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second covers defaults, and the third addresses performance and fallback behavior. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for performance notes) to enhance clarity, hence a 4 instead of a 5.

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 complexity (list retrieval with filtering), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, default behavior, and performance constraints. It compensates for the lack of annotations by disclosing timeout behavior and fallback outcomes. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structure of transcript list) or error scenarios, which would be helpful for an agent, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for all three parameters (limit, from_date, to_date). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying date filtering and limit usage without providing additional syntax or format details. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a list of meeting transcripts with optional filtering.' This specifies the verb (retrieve) and resource (meeting transcripts), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'fireflies_get_transcript_details' (single transcript) and 'fireflies_search_transcripts' (search functionality). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'fireflies_generate_summary' in terms of data retrieval vs. processing, keeping it at a 4 rather than 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?

The description provides implied usage guidance by mentioning default behavior (returns up to 20 most recent transcripts) and performance considerations (timeouts with large datasets). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fireflies_search_transcripts' or 'fireflies_generate_summary', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions. This results in a score of 3 for implied but incomplete guidance.

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