transcribe_result

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 transparently discloses three return states (running, transcript text, diagnostic message), which are the key behavioral outcomes. It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or persistence, but for a simple poll operation, this is adequate.

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 concise at three sentences, with the main action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: first defines purpose, second explains return behaviors. No unnecessary details.

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 (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description reasonably covers the main return cases. It could mention the output format (e.g., JSON) but is otherwise complete for a polling tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for job_id. The description compensates by implying that job_id comes from transcribe_start, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not specify format, example, or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 gets the result of a transcription job started with transcribe_start, distinguishing it from siblings. It specifies the verb 'Get', resource 'result', and lists possible return values (running, transcript, diagnostic), which clarifies the tool's role.

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 implies usage after transcribe_start by referencing it, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for listing jobs) or alternative approaches, though sibling tools provide context.

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